Posted by John Matel on Nov 06, 2007 - 06:59 PM
![A Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) leader with a businessman in Baghdad, Iraq. [USAID photo]](http://blogs.state.gov/images/UNGA/field/2007_1024_iraq_prt_m.jpg)
John Matel is a career Foreign Service Officer (FSO) who is currently serving as the team leader of the Provincial Reconstruction Team embedded in Al Asad, Al Anbar Province.
I just finished reading a news article discussing some of my FSO colleagues' vehement and emotional response to the idea that a few of us might have directed assignments in Iraq . To my vexed and overwrought colleagues, I say take a deep breath and calm down. I have been here for a while now, and you may have been misinformed about life at a PRT.
I personally dislike the whole idea of forced assignments, but we do have to do our jobs. We signed up to be worldwide available. All of us volunteered for this kind of work and we have enjoyed a pretty sweet lifestyle most of our careers.
I will not repeat what the Marines say when I bring up this subject. I tell them that most FSOs are not wimps and weenies. I will not share this article with them and I hope they do not see it. How could I explain this wailing and gnashing of teeth? I just tried to explain it to one of my PRT members, a reserve LtCol called up to serve in Iraq . She asked me if all FSOs would get the R&R, extra pay etc. and if it was our job to do things like this. When I answered in the affirmative, she just rolled her eyes.
Calling Iraq a death sentence is just way over the top. I volunteered to come here aware of the risks but confident that I will come safely home, as do the vast majority of soldiers and Marines, who have a lot riskier jobs than we FSOs do.
I wrote a post a couple days ago where I said that perhaps everyone's talents are not best employed in Iraq . That is still true. But I find the sentiments expressed by some at the town hall meeting deeply offensive. What are they implying about me and my choice? And what do they say to our colleagues in the military, who left friends and family to come here and do their jobs? As diplomats, part of our work is to foster peace and understanding. We cannot always be assured that we will serve only in places where peace and understanding are already safely established.
If these guys at the town hall meeting do not want to come to Iraq , that is okay with. I would not want that sort out here with me anyway. We have enough trouble w/o having to baby sit. BUT they are not worldwide available and they might consider the type of job that does not require worldwide availability.
We all know that few FSOs will REALLY be forced to come to Iraq anyway. Our system really does not work like that. This sound and fury at Foggy Bottom truly signifies nothing. Get over it! I do not think many Americans feel sorry for us and it is embarrassing for people with our privileges to paint ourselves as victims.
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
Follow Entry's Comments Via RSS
Do you want to know when a comment is added to this entry? Stay up-to-date:
Comments
Follow Entry's Comments Via RSS
Do you want to know when a comment is added to this entry? Stay up-to-date:
Comments
Sarah in Nevada writes:
I am not ashamed of the FSOs and their unwillingness to serve in Iraq. If they don't want to face the dangers there than quit.
What I am ashamed of is a country that has placed Bush and Cheney in office and then they in turn have appointed such officials as Condoleezza Rice. Irreparable harm has been done to our worldwide status and we still have 14 months to go. We won't recover from this mess for years....if ever! If only they would quit!
We have just spent the last two years living in the DC area and all I can is: 'What a theme park'.
Posted on Sun Nov 11, 2007
I am not ashamed of the FSOs and their unwillingness to serve in Iraq. If they don't want to face the dangers there than quit.
What I am ashamed of is a country that has placed Bush and Cheney in office and then they in turn have appointed such officials as Condoleezza Rice. Irreparable harm has been done to our worldwide status and we still have 14 months to go. We won't recover from this mess for years....if ever! If only they would quit!
We have just spent the last two years living in the DC area and all I can is: 'What a theme park'.
Posted on Sun Nov 11, 2007
Doug in California writes:
@ Martha in Canada -- Since you know so much about Diplomacy, then why are we in war? Your so-called 'talent' of avoiding violent conflicts with diplomacy didn't work maybe you should fix the situation yourself by going to the place that it's happening in. I know you people don't know how to use weapons nor fight for anything. We Military persons aren't asking you to pick up a weapon and fight. We are simply asking you to do your job were needed in whatever country our country needs you. I would like to see all your State Dept. people stop whining and complaining about going somewhere you would rather not be. Don't you think that us in the Military want to be over there too, but we are!!!????????
Posted on Sun Nov 11, 2007
@ Martha in Canada -- Since you know so much about Diplomacy, then why are we in war? Your so-called 'talent' of avoiding violent conflicts with diplomacy didn't work maybe you should fix the situation yourself by going to the place that it's happening in. I know you people don't know how to use weapons nor fight for anything. We Military persons aren't asking you to pick up a weapon and fight. We are simply asking you to do your job were needed in whatever country our country needs you. I would like to see all your State Dept. people stop whining and complaining about going somewhere you would rather not be. Don't you think that us in the Military want to be over there too, but we are!!!????????
Posted on Sun Nov 11, 2007
Joe in Suriname writes:
Many Foreign Service Officers have served in combat zones and many more will. You can't judge an organization on the behavior or views of a few.
@ Lola in Florida -- I have had easy and difficult tours. On the hardship side I was posted to Chad which was very difficult. My family and I survived civil unrest with bullets going over the house my wife and son were in. I am currently in Suriname which is a hardship tour, but overall a good assignment. On the high side I have been posted in Turkey and Malaysia.
But I have done temporary assignments in over forty countries. Including being in the first wave into Afghanistan in 2002, Baghdad, Al Hilla, and Basra in 2004 and again in Baghdad, Kirkuk, and Al Hilla in 2005.
I can't count the number of rocket, incoming fire, IED, and other close calls I have been through.
@ Brad in Florida -- I am not one of the ones that went to the military for college benefits and then got out. I served on active duty in the Army for 12 years. There are many former military people serving in the Foreign Service.
Posted on Sun Nov 11, 2007
Many Foreign Service Officers have served in combat zones and many more will. You can't judge an organization on the behavior or views of a few.
@ Lola in Florida -- I have had easy and difficult tours. On the hardship side I was posted to Chad which was very difficult. My family and I survived civil unrest with bullets going over the house my wife and son were in. I am currently in Suriname which is a hardship tour, but overall a good assignment. On the high side I have been posted in Turkey and Malaysia.
But I have done temporary assignments in over forty countries. Including being in the first wave into Afghanistan in 2002, Baghdad, Al Hilla, and Basra in 2004 and again in Baghdad, Kirkuk, and Al Hilla in 2005.
I can't count the number of rocket, incoming fire, IED, and other close calls I have been through.
@ Brad in Florida -- I am not one of the ones that went to the military for college benefits and then got out. I served on active duty in the Army for 12 years. There are many former military people serving in the Foreign Service.
Posted on Sun Nov 11, 2007
Hugh in Florida writes:
Mr. Matel has summarized the situation nicely. I've been privileged to work with hundreds of FSO's in dozens of countries, and have the highest respect for most of them. I suggest two alternatives for those who prefer not to serve where they are posted:
1) If you disagree with the policy to the extent that you cannot serve effectively, resign in protest and carry out your campaign elsewhere. If not, hold your tongue, go where you're sent and do your best job. Officers like Mr. Matel should not have to babysit whiners.
2) If you are afraid to serve in dangerous posts to the extent that you are obsessed with your safety and future support for your family, you've chosen the wrong career. It's not all London, Paris, Rome, and the hardest, most dangerous work is sometimes the most rewarding. Choose a career you can be comfortable with.
Posted on Sun Nov 11, 2007
Mr. Matel has summarized the situation nicely. I've been privileged to work with hundreds of FSO's in dozens of countries, and have the highest respect for most of them. I suggest two alternatives for those who prefer not to serve where they are posted:
1) If you disagree with the policy to the extent that you cannot serve effectively, resign in protest and carry out your campaign elsewhere. If not, hold your tongue, go where you're sent and do your best job. Officers like Mr. Matel should not have to babysit whiners.
2) If you are afraid to serve in dangerous posts to the extent that you are obsessed with your safety and future support for your family, you've chosen the wrong career. It's not all London, Paris, Rome, and the hardest, most dangerous work is sometimes the most rewarding. Choose a career you can be comfortable with.
Posted on Sun Nov 11, 2007
Don in Houston, Texas writes:
I am an Army veteran in the private sector who works hard to pay my taxes so that you pitiful people can get paid too much, do little real work, do simple work that bureaucrats do, retire at a young age and get a rich pension, In spite of your grand and easy life, some of you refuse to go where you are assigned. How sad.
Thanks goodness that our soldiers and Marines are not as pitiful as you pack of leeches.
Posted on Sun Nov 11, 2007
I am an Army veteran in the private sector who works hard to pay my taxes so that you pitiful people can get paid too much, do little real work, do simple work that bureaucrats do, retire at a young age and get a rich pension, In spite of your grand and easy life, some of you refuse to go where you are assigned. How sad.
Thanks goodness that our soldiers and Marines are not as pitiful as you pack of leeches.
Posted on Sun Nov 11, 2007
Martha in Canada writes:
Foreign Service Officers are civilians; we are not soldiers. One might ask, what is the difference? In general FSO's are valued for their abilities to communicate, to speak to people and to report on their contacts and exchanges that they have made with people overseas. We are valued for our language abilities, our abilities to see shades of gray and our abilities to express complex experiences and ideas usually in a bilateral (can be multilateral) setting.
There is a profound distinction between diplomacy which should focus on the steps governments make to avoid violence and working in a war zone. To indicate that somehow people who are capable of communicating and relating to foreign audiences, and able to make people to people contacts, are in some way cowards if they doubt their abilities to serve optimally in a situation that is predicated on violence, is simply a negligent misunderstanding of what diplomacy is.
There are reasons to have military personnel and there are equally substantial and necessary reasons to have diplomats. But, they may not be the same reasons.
Most of us who serve in State who are not coming in from the military are not trained to kill; we don't know how to use weapons.
Posted on Sun Nov 11, 2007
Foreign Service Officers are civilians; we are not soldiers. One might ask, what is the difference? In general FSO's are valued for their abilities to communicate, to speak to people and to report on their contacts and exchanges that they have made with people overseas. We are valued for our language abilities, our abilities to see shades of gray and our abilities to express complex experiences and ideas usually in a bilateral (can be multilateral) setting.
There is a profound distinction between diplomacy which should focus on the steps governments make to avoid violence and working in a war zone. To indicate that somehow people who are capable of communicating and relating to foreign audiences, and able to make people to people contacts, are in some way cowards if they doubt their abilities to serve optimally in a situation that is predicated on violence, is simply a negligent misunderstanding of what diplomacy is.
There are reasons to have military personnel and there are equally substantial and necessary reasons to have diplomats. But, they may not be the same reasons.
Most of us who serve in State who are not coming in from the military are not trained to kill; we don't know how to use weapons.
Posted on Sun Nov 11, 2007
Sean in Afghanistan writes:
I would like to know when you oxygen thieves will decide to serve your country? When the enemy is parachuting down on you. You all disgust me, I would cut all your pay to GS-1's and put you in front of typewriters. We in the military don't have families and friends? Who will take care of them when we are gone? Miss Rice please take me into the FSO state dept. and my fellow brethren so honor can be restored. Your worried about the green zone? You are clueless clowns and pathetic too! Can't tell you how much disgrace you people are. Go back to the other sheep, The guard dogs will protect you.
Posted on Sun Nov 11, 2007
I would like to know when you oxygen thieves will decide to serve your country? When the enemy is parachuting down on you. You all disgust me, I would cut all your pay to GS-1's and put you in front of typewriters. We in the military don't have families and friends? Who will take care of them when we are gone? Miss Rice please take me into the FSO state dept. and my fellow brethren so honor can be restored. Your worried about the green zone? You are clueless clowns and pathetic too! Can't tell you how much disgrace you people are. Go back to the other sheep, The guard dogs will protect you.
Posted on Sun Nov 11, 2007
Gary in North Carolina writes:
I am retired AF military (Vietnam Vet) and retired AF civil servant. I would gladly come back on duty to serve in Iraq given the opportunity. Serving my country is what my whole life has been about and I would be proud to continue. I'm sure there are thousands of us out there and the State Department wouldn't have a problem finding us.
Posted on Sun Nov 11, 2007
I am retired AF military (Vietnam Vet) and retired AF civil servant. I would gladly come back on duty to serve in Iraq given the opportunity. Serving my country is what my whole life has been about and I would be proud to continue. I'm sure there are thousands of us out there and the State Department wouldn't have a problem finding us.
Posted on Sun Nov 11, 2007
Paulo in Oklahoma writes:
There is so much vitriol in this string of responses that it is difficult to find a place to begin. It seems to me that there are two basic issues to address: the political and the practical.
The practical first: The Foreign Service is being asked to sacrifice to support a U.S. Government policy. Expectedly, this request brings on much angst as Officers are trying to balance the demands that America today makes on them. We do not need to go into the differences in support that engender Military life and Foreign Service life. Let's just leave it at the fact that the military does a much better job of supporting its family than State currently does. As an FSO, I have been asked to carry out the foreign policy initiatives of every president since Reagan. Some policies were good and some were half-baked. The practical matter is whether, given the conditions on the ground, diplomacy can make a difference. That question remains unanswered even in the face of the largest deployment of diplomats in history to Iraq. Many of these problems were foreseen as early as March, 2001, when the majority of field reporting advised this administration against getting involved in Iraq for many of the reasons that have come to pass. Again, in 2003, the Foreign Service advised our policy-makers on the parameters for an invasion/occupation of a major country where we could not expect things to go very differently than they have. Should we continue to contribute our bodies to this situation when our tools of engagement (our minds) have been eviscerated?
The second issue is the most troubling. On the political side, many things are happening in this debate.
1. Why is there a shortage of volunteers for Iraq? There isn't. The numbers have been manipulated, perhaps for political reasons, in an attack on the integrity of the patriots that took the oath of office. The anticipated vacancies in Iraq were filled in the (ab)normal assignment process this year. The shortfall arose when some 50-80 new positions were created, positions that Officers were unaware of. The flap started with the premature wailing of the administration that the gap existed and the threats of directed assignments. None thought to ask for more volunteers before going to the press. To me, this is a political move by the administration to deflect criticism of the shortcomings of the Iraq policy over the past several years. It further hides what is perhaps a dereliction of duty on the part of the administration. Department officials have been given everything they have asked for by Congress over the past few years. So why do we have a 2000-person shortfall in State Department staffing? Those same officials have chosen not to ask for sufficient resources for the organization.
2. Oath of office: I swore an oath to serve this country, "to support and defend the Constitution," and defend the United States "against all enemies, foreign and domestic." I am a Foreign Service office, not a law enforcement officer or a military officer. From that perspective, where have the challenges to the Constitution come from? Not from Saddam, or even al-Qaeda (which wasn't in Iraq until we got there). The "Patriot Act" is a bigger threat to the Constitution than al-Qaeda will ever be.
And for those of you chortling about "getting elected" to carry out policy, election does not make a policy effective, actionable, or even right-headed. That is what the Constitution is for.
Those in charge of the U.S. Department of State and other organizations in our government today need to take their roles seriously, consider both the political exigencies and the managerial responsibilities before taking an internal debate over the effectiveness of our Iraq policy into the public arena where the same media that ignored the warning signs before 9/11, and before the invasion of Iraq can work its same magic on this issue.
Posted on Sun Nov 11, 2007
There is so much vitriol in this string of responses that it is difficult to find a place to begin. It seems to me that there are two basic issues to address: the political and the practical.
The practical first: The Foreign Service is being asked to sacrifice to support a U.S. Government policy. Expectedly, this request brings on much angst as Officers are trying to balance the demands that America today makes on them. We do not need to go into the differences in support that engender Military life and Foreign Service life. Let's just leave it at the fact that the military does a much better job of supporting its family than State currently does. As an FSO, I have been asked to carry out the foreign policy initiatives of every president since Reagan. Some policies were good and some were half-baked. The practical matter is whether, given the conditions on the ground, diplomacy can make a difference. That question remains unanswered even in the face of the largest deployment of diplomats in history to Iraq. Many of these problems were foreseen as early as March, 2001, when the majority of field reporting advised this administration against getting involved in Iraq for many of the reasons that have come to pass. Again, in 2003, the Foreign Service advised our policy-makers on the parameters for an invasion/occupation of a major country where we could not expect things to go very differently than they have. Should we continue to contribute our bodies to this situation when our tools of engagement (our minds) have been eviscerated?
The second issue is the most troubling. On the political side, many things are happening in this debate.
1. Why is there a shortage of volunteers for Iraq? There isn't. The numbers have been manipulated, perhaps for political reasons, in an attack on the integrity of the patriots that took the oath of office. The anticipated vacancies in Iraq were filled in the (ab)normal assignment process this year. The shortfall arose when some 50-80 new positions were created, positions that Officers were unaware of. The flap started with the premature wailing of the administration that the gap existed and the threats of directed assignments. None thought to ask for more volunteers before going to the press. To me, this is a political move by the administration to deflect criticism of the shortcomings of the Iraq policy over the past several years. It further hides what is perhaps a dereliction of duty on the part of the administration. Department officials have been given everything they have asked for by Congress over the past few years. So why do we have a 2000-person shortfall in State Department staffing? Those same officials have chosen not to ask for sufficient resources for the organization.
2. Oath of office: I swore an oath to serve this country, "to support and defend the Constitution," and defend the United States "against all enemies, foreign and domestic." I am a Foreign Service office, not a law enforcement officer or a military officer. From that perspective, where have the challenges to the Constitution come from? Not from Saddam, or even al-Qaeda (which wasn't in Iraq until we got there). The "Patriot Act" is a bigger threat to the Constitution than al-Qaeda will ever be.
And for those of you chortling about "getting elected" to carry out policy, election does not make a policy effective, actionable, or even right-headed. That is what the Constitution is for.
Those in charge of the U.S. Department of State and other organizations in our government today need to take their roles seriously, consider both the political exigencies and the managerial responsibilities before taking an internal debate over the effectiveness of our Iraq policy into the public arena where the same media that ignored the warning signs before 9/11, and before the invasion of Iraq can work its same magic on this issue.
Posted on Sun Nov 11, 2007
Andrew in Massachusetts writes:
@ Gregory in Virginia --
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/10/AR2007111001472.html
Just came across this WAPO article citing both Sec. Rice, and DepSec. Negroponte making it clear that if the remaining 28 of 48 posts are not filled there will be call ups to serve for FSOs. It seems Secretary Rice is putting her foot down, and that gives this citizen confidence in the leadership at State.
Excerpt Washington Post, 11/11/07
""If I need somebody to serve in Iraq, they have to serve there," Rice said in an interview on Friday with the Dallas Morning News.
Rice praised the Foreign Service and noted that "large numbers" have volunteered for Iraq duty in the past four years. She said that widespread news reports indicating diplomatic dissension over possible directed assignments were "overblown.""
Posted on Sun Nov 11, 2007
@ Gregory in Virginia --
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/10/AR2007111001472.html
Just came across this WAPO article citing both Sec. Rice, and DepSec. Negroponte making it clear that if the remaining 28 of 48 posts are not filled there will be call ups to serve for FSOs. It seems Secretary Rice is putting her foot down, and that gives this citizen confidence in the leadership at State.
Excerpt Washington Post, 11/11/07
""If I need somebody to serve in Iraq, they have to serve there," Rice said in an interview on Friday with the Dallas Morning News.
Rice praised the Foreign Service and noted that "large numbers" have volunteered for Iraq duty in the past four years. She said that widespread news reports indicating diplomatic dissension over possible directed assignments were "overblown.""
Posted on Sun Nov 11, 2007
Tim in Thailand writes:
Dear Folks,
When I read the posts and comments here, I am reminded of the phrase about not seeing the forest for the trees. Folks are so busy picking apart the red herring issues (the trees) they are missing the underlying issues.
I am currently on business travel in Bangkok. Having seen much of the world over with extensive travel over 25 years, all without the benefits of the comfort and perks of being a diplomat, I am not uninformed nor unenlightened.
The view of the U.S. is at such an all time low that we U.S. citizens are embarrassed to show our passports. People whisper in hotel lobbies and lounges about how embarrassing the current leadership is in the U.S.
Of course it is frustrating for career diplomats when they are a part of an administration who view of diplomacy is to drop bombs and rattle swords in a new doctrine of "strike first" and "toss established humanitarian conventions out the window".
This is exactly what is to be expected when the basic doctrines of our constitution are trampled upon in a new Orwellian doublespeak called "freedom" and "democracy". Instead of a nation of compassionate intellectuals we are a divided nation because of religious and revengeful zealots.
It was not the events of 911 that destabilized the world - it was and is the continued revengeful and hateful reactions by our government leaders.
It is now an embarrassment to be an American overseas, as well all know, and the only folks who don't see it are those blinded by the flag that is wrapped around their head, covering their eyes to the truth.
Yours faithfully.
Posted on Sun Nov 11, 2007
Dear Folks,
When I read the posts and comments here, I am reminded of the phrase about not seeing the forest for the trees. Folks are so busy picking apart the red herring issues (the trees) they are missing the underlying issues.
I am currently on business travel in Bangkok. Having seen much of the world over with extensive travel over 25 years, all without the benefits of the comfort and perks of being a diplomat, I am not uninformed nor unenlightened.
The view of the U.S. is at such an all time low that we U.S. citizens are embarrassed to show our passports. People whisper in hotel lobbies and lounges about how embarrassing the current leadership is in the U.S.
Of course it is frustrating for career diplomats when they are a part of an administration who view of diplomacy is to drop bombs and rattle swords in a new doctrine of "strike first" and "toss established humanitarian conventions out the window".
This is exactly what is to be expected when the basic doctrines of our constitution are trampled upon in a new Orwellian doublespeak called "freedom" and "democracy". Instead of a nation of compassionate intellectuals we are a divided nation because of religious and revengeful zealots.
It was not the events of 911 that destabilized the world - it was and is the continued revengeful and hateful reactions by our government leaders.
It is now an embarrassment to be an American overseas, as well all know, and the only folks who don't see it are those blinded by the flag that is wrapped around their head, covering their eyes to the truth.
Yours faithfully.
Posted on Sun Nov 11, 2007
David in Austria writes:
John,
Thank you for expressing what has long been on my mind. As one of the early FSO's who volunteered for service in Iraq, it was always my assumption that once policy decisions are made by those constitutionally empowered to make them, it is our job to put shoulder to the wheel and make them successful. And while we may be frustrated by what we think is poor implementation, that in fact makes it more important for those of us who are in a position to help, to step up and do so.
Every organization has its whiners and shirkers, and the State Department, or for that matter the military, is no different. It's just too bad that ours have received undo attention lately, and made us all look bad.
Congratulations on your recent successes in Anbar. When I was in Baghdad in 2004, things were going in the opposite direction. What impressed me was the number of people who refused to admit defeat when things looked hopeless. It appears to me now that al Qaida has been defeated in Anbar.
If this turns out to be true for the rest of Iraq, we can claim a major historic victory, not unlike many others in the history of our country. Those of us who had the opportunity take part will be able to look back with satisfaction. Those few (from a historical perspective) who did not survive will be honored. Most of the rest of the world will pocket the turn of events as the natural course of things, with little regard for the struggle or the sacrifice. So be it.
Keep up the good work.
Posted on Sun Nov 11, 2007
John,
Thank you for expressing what has long been on my mind. As one of the early FSO's who volunteered for service in Iraq, it was always my assumption that once policy decisions are made by those constitutionally empowered to make them, it is our job to put shoulder to the wheel and make them successful. And while we may be frustrated by what we think is poor implementation, that in fact makes it more important for those of us who are in a position to help, to step up and do so.
Every organization has its whiners and shirkers, and the State Department, or for that matter the military, is no different. It's just too bad that ours have received undo attention lately, and made us all look bad.
Congratulations on your recent successes in Anbar. When I was in Baghdad in 2004, things were going in the opposite direction. What impressed me was the number of people who refused to admit defeat when things looked hopeless. It appears to me now that al Qaida has been defeated in Anbar.
If this turns out to be true for the rest of Iraq, we can claim a major historic victory, not unlike many others in the history of our country. Those of us who had the opportunity take part will be able to look back with satisfaction. Those few (from a historical perspective) who did not survive will be honored. Most of the rest of the world will pocket the turn of events as the natural course of things, with little regard for the struggle or the sacrifice. So be it.
Keep up the good work.
Posted on Sun Nov 11, 2007
Michael in Virginia writes:
I'm a Foreign Service Officer scheduled for deployment to Iraq in early 2008. I, along with my fellow FSOs, will do the needful. We do this because we understand that duty and honor are important. In 1996, I was one of seven Americans taken hostage by MRTA terrorists at the Japanese Ambassador's residence in Lima, Peru. I remember my thoughts in those days before we were released when I wondered if I would ever see my family again. This is not an easy life but it's the one we've chosen. I go to Iraq because my country needs my skills and experience there. Over 1,500 of my FS colleagues have made the same decision. I hope that the country remembers those that have served and those that are committed to serve as the debate over directed assignments gains more attention.
Posted on Sun Nov 11, 2007
I'm a Foreign Service Officer scheduled for deployment to Iraq in early 2008. I, along with my fellow FSOs, will do the needful. We do this because we understand that duty and honor are important. In 1996, I was one of seven Americans taken hostage by MRTA terrorists at the Japanese Ambassador's residence in Lima, Peru. I remember my thoughts in those days before we were released when I wondered if I would ever see my family again. This is not an easy life but it's the one we've chosen. I go to Iraq because my country needs my skills and experience there. Over 1,500 of my FS colleagues have made the same decision. I hope that the country remembers those that have served and those that are committed to serve as the debate over directed assignments gains more attention.
Posted on Sun Nov 11, 2007
Dipnote Blogger John Matel writes:
@ Tara in Washington -- What you are saying WAS often true. It is also still dangerous difficult and unpleasant here. As for the difficult part, that is sometimes the FSO job. We all hope to have pleasant experiences, but we cannot always guarantee that. The more important point is that conditions are changing. The military surge has brought some security and an opportunity for the diplomats to really do to work. I am in the field, among Iraqis several times a week. Members of my staff are out every day. We still have heavy and unpleasant security arrangements, but we are by no means hunkered down.
I do not know much about the status of reporting officers in Baghdad and I never advocated that everybody come to Iraq, but I can tell you with certainty that in the PRTs we are doing real things. It is the kind of diplomacy that most of us can only dream of doing. It is hard and there is a lot of responsibility. I am certain that I will be glad when I am done, but it is shaping up to be the most interesting and rewarding job I have ever had, or ever even heard about.
It may not be the appropriate time for a particular person to come to Iraq. But they are missing out of the chance to do the things - the good things - that most of us signed up to do. Serving in Iraq is a great OPPORTUNITY. Some day soon others may regret they did not take it.
@ Gregory in Virginia -- you know where I stand on this issue, but I would not minimize the legitimate security concern. My own feeling is that I am in more danger from a helicopter or Humvee accident than from an insurgent bullet or AQI bomb, but since I am traveling by helicopter all the time, I do think of that.
@ Franz in Afghanistan -- My experience with the military is similar. They want us here and are supportive. We are not just hunkered down. On the contrary.
@ Jennifer in Arkansas -- I think it is http://www.careers.state.gov where you want to look. Otherwise just go to the http://www.state.gov and look for the career section.
@ Lola in Florida -- My hardships until now were not very hard. I was in Krakow when it was still a 15% hardship. It was very polluted but not hard. My posts in Brazil will called hardship, but they also were not very hard. I have been to only one non-hardship post, but I have never been to a post that I did not enjoy AND Iraq is not an exception, despite the danger, dust and drudgery. If you want to make an ad hominem point, you may be able to do it, but that is not the point. If you read carefully what I have written, you see that I say that some people's skills are best used someplace besides Iraq. I am not advocating Iraq tours to make people uncomfortable or as a type of payback. It is merely that Iraq is currently one of our top priorities and we should be willing to do our jobs if we are the most appropriate.
BTW - if you read what I wrote above, I think the service in Iraq is underrated. Running a PRT is probably about the best job most FSO can get. Conditions are unpleasant, but job satisfaction is tremendous. People who refuse to consider Iraq are just missing out. It is more fun than writing cables in Paris.
Posted on Sun Nov 11, 2007
@ Tara in Washington -- What you are saying WAS often true. It is also still dangerous difficult and unpleasant here. As for the difficult part, that is sometimes the FSO job. We all hope to have pleasant experiences, but we cannot always guarantee that. The more important point is that conditions are changing. The military surge has brought some security and an opportunity for the diplomats to really do to work. I am in the field, among Iraqis several times a week. Members of my staff are out every day. We still have heavy and unpleasant security arrangements, but we are by no means hunkered down.
I do not know much about the status of reporting officers in Baghdad and I never advocated that everybody come to Iraq, but I can tell you with certainty that in the PRTs we are doing real things. It is the kind of diplomacy that most of us can only dream of doing. It is hard and there is a lot of responsibility. I am certain that I will be glad when I am done, but it is shaping up to be the most interesting and rewarding job I have ever had, or ever even heard about.
It may not be the appropriate time for a particular person to come to Iraq. But they are missing out of the chance to do the things - the good things - that most of us signed up to do. Serving in Iraq is a great OPPORTUNITY. Some day soon others may regret they did not take it.
@ Gregory in Virginia -- you know where I stand on this issue, but I would not minimize the legitimate security concern. My own feeling is that I am in more danger from a helicopter or Humvee accident than from an insurgent bullet or AQI bomb, but since I am traveling by helicopter all the time, I do think of that.
@ Franz in Afghanistan -- My experience with the military is similar. They want us here and are supportive. We are not just hunkered down. On the contrary.
@ Jennifer in Arkansas -- I think it is http://www.careers.state.gov where you want to look. Otherwise just go to the http://www.state.gov and look for the career section.
@ Lola in Florida -- My hardships until now were not very hard. I was in Krakow when it was still a 15% hardship. It was very polluted but not hard. My posts in Brazil will called hardship, but they also were not very hard. I have been to only one non-hardship post, but I have never been to a post that I did not enjoy AND Iraq is not an exception, despite the danger, dust and drudgery. If you want to make an ad hominem point, you may be able to do it, but that is not the point. If you read carefully what I have written, you see that I say that some people's skills are best used someplace besides Iraq. I am not advocating Iraq tours to make people uncomfortable or as a type of payback. It is merely that Iraq is currently one of our top priorities and we should be willing to do our jobs if we are the most appropriate.
BTW - if you read what I wrote above, I think the service in Iraq is underrated. Running a PRT is probably about the best job most FSO can get. Conditions are unpleasant, but job satisfaction is tremendous. People who refuse to consider Iraq are just missing out. It is more fun than writing cables in Paris.
Posted on Sun Nov 11, 2007
Karl in U.S. writes:
As a former FSO, and USAF Vietnam veteran, I have read the postings re forced assignments to Iraq with interest and some vexation. While every FSO I know wants to "make a difference," I am reminded of a conversation I had many years ago with a former Undersecretary for Political affairs, at the time the most senior career officer in the Department. We were discussing the future of the foreign Service, an evergreen favorite topic, when he imparted two thoughts that have remained with me over the decades:
"Remember, not one person in this building (Main State) was elected to their job. If you don't like policy X, quit and work to change it, but remember that "Service" is the middle name in FSO." Tough for a competitive examination entry junior FSO to hear, but true nonetheless.
The second bit of wisdom came later when we were discussing the public resignation (a one-day Washington Post story) of a mid-level officer supposedly over a policy disagreement. He said: "Look, when you get an assignment, you have three options - go, talk your way out of the posting, or quit. If you go, you owe it to your colleagues, your Ambassador, and the career to do your level best to succeed."
Many people disagree with our current policy in Iraq, but if you believe in a democratic government and a professional Foreign Service, I still think this advice provides fair guidance.
Posted on Sun Nov 11, 2007
As a former FSO, and USAF Vietnam veteran, I have read the postings re forced assignments to Iraq with interest and some vexation. While every FSO I know wants to "make a difference," I am reminded of a conversation I had many years ago with a former Undersecretary for Political affairs, at the time the most senior career officer in the Department. We were discussing the future of the foreign Service, an evergreen favorite topic, when he imparted two thoughts that have remained with me over the decades:
"Remember, not one person in this building (Main State) was elected to their job. If you don't like policy X, quit and work to change it, but remember that "Service" is the middle name in FSO." Tough for a competitive examination entry junior FSO to hear, but true nonetheless.
The second bit of wisdom came later when we were discussing the public resignation (a one-day Washington Post story) of a mid-level officer supposedly over a policy disagreement. He said: "Look, when you get an assignment, you have three options - go, talk your way out of the posting, or quit. If you go, you owe it to your colleagues, your Ambassador, and the career to do your level best to succeed."
Many people disagree with our current policy in Iraq, but if you believe in a democratic government and a professional Foreign Service, I still think this advice provides fair guidance.
Posted on Sun Nov 11, 2007
Anne in Washington, DC writes:
I am one of those who have served in Baghdad and I can tell you that it was the most difficult thing I have ever done in my life. I left my husband and two children (aged 11 and 15 at the time) and stepped up to the plate. It was also probably the most rewarding job of my career. Unlike many, I was lucky to have a management job where I could accomplish some real goals to improve the working conditions for my American and Iraqi colleagues alike.
On a personal side, I learned to appreciate my family and my country all the more. Although I've been back over 3 months, I am still overwhelmed by the joy of being with my family again, being able to shop at the local Giant and feel alive again.
I hope I never have to go back again, but if duty calls, I will respond. For details on my life during the year in Baghdad, check out my blog: http://www.baghdadanne.com. You'll see that it was a tough assignment, but not without its rewards.
I was at the Town Hall meeting and embarrassed to see how our service is being torn apart by this issue. I hope those who are sitting on the fence will make the decision to serve. We're professionals; we took an oath and we serve the Office of the President. I'm disappointed that we've become so polarized.
Posted on Sat Nov 10, 2007
I am one of those who have served in Baghdad and I can tell you that it was the most difficult thing I have ever done in my life. I left my husband and two children (aged 11 and 15 at the time) and stepped up to the plate. It was also probably the most rewarding job of my career. Unlike many, I was lucky to have a management job where I could accomplish some real goals to improve the working conditions for my American and Iraqi colleagues alike.
On a personal side, I learned to appreciate my family and my country all the more. Although I've been back over 3 months, I am still overwhelmed by the joy of being with my family again, being able to shop at the local Giant and feel alive again.
I hope I never have to go back again, but if duty calls, I will respond. For details on my life during the year in Baghdad, check out my blog: http://www.baghdadanne.com. You'll see that it was a tough assignment, but not without its rewards.
I was at the Town Hall meeting and embarrassed to see how our service is being torn apart by this issue. I hope those who are sitting on the fence will make the decision to serve. We're professionals; we took an oath and we serve the Office of the President. I'm disappointed that we've become so polarized.
Posted on Sat Nov 10, 2007
Tara in Washington, DC writes:
Is Iraq a death sentence? Probably not. Perhaps you feel you are making a real difference in your PRT, and if so, congratulations. But every officer I've spoken to that has come back from service in Baghdad, even those who are true believers in the cause, have had bad experiences. They can't leave the green zone. They have no way to access information to report. They have to compete with contractors who do the same thing they do, have fewer security restrictions, have been at post far longer, and therefore have all the contacts. Let's face it, the majority of State officers in Iraq at the moment are there for show. They can't perform their jobs due to security problems, so they sit in their bunkers for a year, hope they don't get hit by a stray rocket, pocket the money, and come home hoping for a good assignment. So I am supposed to leave my two young children for a year to sit in a bunker and do nothing but fight with other Americans for shreds of information I can report back? I consider it tragic that military personnel must leave their families behind for such a poorly planned mission, but at least when they get to Iraq, they have a job to do. I personally don't feel that the travesty is that more FSOs aren't willing to go to Iraq, no questions asked, it's that more FSOs are not willing to ask the question, calmly and without emotion or hysterics, what for?
Posted on Sat Nov 10, 2007
Is Iraq a death sentence? Probably not. Perhaps you feel you are making a real difference in your PRT, and if so, congratulations. But every officer I've spoken to that has come back from service in Baghdad, even those who are true believers in the cause, have had bad experiences. They can't leave the green zone. They have no way to access information to report. They have to compete with contractors who do the same thing they do, have fewer security restrictions, have been at post far longer, and therefore have all the contacts. Let's face it, the majority of State officers in Iraq at the moment are there for show. They can't perform their jobs due to security problems, so they sit in their bunkers for a year, hope they don't get hit by a stray rocket, pocket the money, and come home hoping for a good assignment. So I am supposed to leave my two young children for a year to sit in a bunker and do nothing but fight with other Americans for shreds of information I can report back? I consider it tragic that military personnel must leave their families behind for such a poorly planned mission, but at least when they get to Iraq, they have a job to do. I personally don't feel that the travesty is that more FSOs aren't willing to go to Iraq, no questions asked, it's that more FSOs are not willing to ask the question, calmly and without emotion or hysterics, what for?
Posted on Sat Nov 10, 2007
Gregory in Virginia writes:
Let me articulate what the Marines might be thinking.
As a retired Air Force officer, I am appalled at the Foreign Service officers who are afraid to go to Iraq and so dramatically state that its a "death sentence." One does not expect to find the latest mutation of Sunshine Patriotism at State. As Mr. Matel points out, the U.S Military and DoD personnel pay an infinitely higher price than the State FSOs could ever dream - and the military folks pay that price with a lot more selflessness, a lot fewer expressions of reservation, and, on average at a lot lower pay.
Almost four thousand soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen have died in Iraq; about 23,000 have been wounded to some degree. To add insult to injury and death, some National Guardsman and Reservists have lost their regular jobs because of repeated call-ups and extended tours, if you believe what you read in The Washington Post. I searched State's official web site and can find no official record of any foreign service officer deaths in Iraq.
While Foreign Service officers do risk bodily harm, I would guess, statistically, that the risk is no greater than what they face on their drive to work in Washington D.C.
Those hopefully few "comfortable careerists" at State should be ashamed of themselves, for even suggesting that their risk of bodily harm should be an overriding consideration for their deployment. That they do so without any mention of the price their fellow Americans in Defense pay for what is a National policy, not to mention the Iraqui people themselves, should only add to their shame. The bitter irony is that those in Defense who serve in Iraq probably have much less "say" about the policy than those who object in State.
I am also profoundly disappointed that Secretary Rice is apparently publicly silent on the topic, as is Deputy Secretary Negroponte.
Those Foreign Service officers who refuse service in Iraq should be dismissed. At the very least, part of their daily duties should be to spend a year changing bedpans at Walter Reed for those Americans who did not refuse service.
Sadly, without much respect...
Posted on Sat Nov 10, 2007
Let me articulate what the Marines might be thinking.
As a retired Air Force officer, I am appalled at the Foreign Service officers who are afraid to go to Iraq and so dramatically state that its a "death sentence." One does not expect to find the latest mutation of Sunshine Patriotism at State. As Mr. Matel points out, the U.S Military and DoD personnel pay an infinitely higher price than the State FSOs could ever dream - and the military folks pay that price with a lot more selflessness, a lot fewer expressions of reservation, and, on average at a lot lower pay.
Almost four thousand soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen have died in Iraq; about 23,000 have been wounded to some degree. To add insult to injury and death, some National Guardsman and Reservists have lost their regular jobs because of repeated call-ups and extended tours, if you believe what you read in The Washington Post. I searched State's official web site and can find no official record of any foreign service officer deaths in Iraq.
While Foreign Service officers do risk bodily harm, I would guess, statistically, that the risk is no greater than what they face on their drive to work in Washington D.C.
Those hopefully few "comfortable careerists" at State should be ashamed of themselves, for even suggesting that their risk of bodily harm should be an overriding consideration for their deployment. That they do so without any mention of the price their fellow Americans in Defense pay for what is a National policy, not to mention the Iraqui people themselves, should only add to their shame. The bitter irony is that those in Defense who serve in Iraq probably have much less "say" about the policy than those who object in State.
I am also profoundly disappointed that Secretary Rice is apparently publicly silent on the topic, as is Deputy Secretary Negroponte.
Those Foreign Service officers who refuse service in Iraq should be dismissed. At the very least, part of their daily duties should be to spend a year changing bedpans at Walter Reed for those Americans who did not refuse service.
Sadly, without much respect...
Posted on Sat Nov 10, 2007
Franz in Afghanistan writes:
The Secretary of State called on Foreign Service members to step up and volunteer to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan. One of the main reasons I volunteered to serve in a Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) in Afghanistan -- besides the obvious obligations entailed by the Secretary’s call and the oath I swore when I became a commissioned Foreign Service Officer – is the consular leadership tenet, “Lead by Example.” As a mid-level consular officer who ordinarily supervises junior officers, I am concerned about the great number of first- and second-tour junior officers who have been assigned to Iraq and Afghanistan. These dedicated junior officers, who are subject to “directed assignments,” deserve to have leaders who share the risks and sacrifices they are experiencing, and who develop the specific leadership skills of the new, “expeditionary” Foreign Service, which increasingly engages in interagency missions such as PRTs. It would obviously be detrimental to the morale of the junior officers if we older, more seasoned officers avoided service in Iraq and Afghanistan while the Department continues to send large portions of each new officer class to these dangerous assignments. Although we older officers tend to have spouses, children, and other reasons not to want to go on unaccompanied tours of duty, it is nevertheless essential to the well-being of our Service that we lead by example. I think we older officers long ago became used to being sneered at and characterized as the “pin-stripe set,” arrogant trouble-makers who aim to undermine the administration’s foreign policy, and so forth. The surge of public derision occasioned by some FSOs’ comments at the infamous town hall meeting should not alarm or offend us; we’ve heard it all before. What should concern us, I submit, is 1) the formation of skills and a professional work ethic among our junior officers, and 2) the development through on-the-ground experience of best practices for interagency missions. We mid-level officers who serve in Iraq and Afghanistan will soon be leading and mentoring junior officers bound for those war zones.
I’ve read some articles lately which assert that FSOs’ roles in PRTs and in war zones generally are limited to the point of being nearly worthless; that the military has no use for us, does not understand what FSOs are doing, or supposed to be doing, and even that FSOs are a burden to the military units with which they work. My experience is quite the contrary. The military officers and enlisted ranks with whom I work appreciate very much that I am with them, and we work effectively together. I don’t presume that I perform any function for the mission that the military could not do itself if it had to; but it shouldn’t have to. There is a general consensus in Afghanistan that the inter-service and interagency functioning of PRTs is effective and is steadily improving as the military, State, USAID, and other federal agencies acquire experience with the interagency approach to counterinsurgency, security, reconstruction, and development. FSOs are recognized and appreciated by the military as force multipliers.
I have tremendous respect for my military colleagues, many of whom are Individual Ready Reservists whose deployment is even more inconvenient than mine is, as they have to endure an interruption of their civilian careers whereas this is my career. In light of our military colleagues’ sacrifices and the strong positive contribution FSOs are making to interagency missions, I would say to FSO colleagues who might be sitting on the fence with respect to volunteering for Iraq or Afghanistan: It is certainly difficult and painful to be separated from loved ones, but if you have a Class 1 medical clearance, you should volunteer. You will be appreciated, you will make a real contribution, you will become a better officer, and you will really lead by example.
Posted on Sat Nov 10, 2007
The Secretary of State called on Foreign Service members to step up and volunteer to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan. One of the main reasons I volunteered to serve in a Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) in Afghanistan -- besides the obvious obligations entailed by the Secretary’s call and the oath I swore when I became a commissioned Foreign Service Officer – is the consular leadership tenet, “Lead by Example.” As a mid-level consular officer who ordinarily supervises junior officers, I am concerned about the great number of first- and second-tour junior officers who have been assigned to Iraq and Afghanistan. These dedicated junior officers, who are subject to “directed assignments,” deserve to have leaders who share the risks and sacrifices they are experiencing, and who develop the specific leadership skills of the new, “expeditionary” Foreign Service, which increasingly engages in interagency missions such as PRTs. It would obviously be detrimental to the morale of the junior officers if we older, more seasoned officers avoided service in Iraq and Afghanistan while the Department continues to send large portions of each new officer class to these dangerous assignments. Although we older officers tend to have spouses, children, and other reasons not to want to go on unaccompanied tours of duty, it is nevertheless essential to the well-being of our Service that we lead by example. I think we older officers long ago became used to being sneered at and characterized as the “pin-stripe set,” arrogant trouble-makers who aim to undermine the administration’s foreign policy, and so forth. The surge of public derision occasioned by some FSOs’ comments at the infamous town hall meeting should not alarm or offend us; we’ve heard it all before. What should concern us, I submit, is 1) the formation of skills and a professional work ethic among our junior officers, and 2) the development through on-the-ground experience of best practices for interagency missions. We mid-level officers who serve in Iraq and Afghanistan will soon be leading and mentoring junior officers bound for those war zones.
I’ve read some articles lately which assert that FSOs’ roles in PRTs and in war zones generally are limited to the point of being nearly worthless; that the military has no use for us, does not understand what FSOs are doing, or supposed to be doing, and even that FSOs are a burden to the military units with which they work. My experience is quite the contrary. The military officers and enlisted ranks with whom I work appreciate very much that I am with them, and we work effectively together. I don’t presume that I perform any function for the mission that the military could not do itself if it had to; but it shouldn’t have to. There is a general consensus in Afghanistan that the inter-service and interagency functioning of PRTs is effective and is steadily improving as the military, State, USAID, and other federal agencies acquire experience with the interagency approach to counterinsurgency, security, reconstruction, and development. FSOs are recognized and appreciated by the military as force multipliers.
I have tremendous respect for my military colleagues, many of whom are Individual Ready Reservists whose deployment is even more inconvenient than mine is, as they have to endure an interruption of their civilian careers whereas this is my career. In light of our military colleagues’ sacrifices and the strong positive contribution FSOs are making to interagency missions, I would say to FSO colleagues who might be sitting on the fence with respect to volunteering for Iraq or Afghanistan: It is certainly difficult and painful to be separated from loved ones, but if you have a Class 1 medical clearance, you should volunteer. You will be appreciated, you will make a real contribution, you will become a better officer, and you will really lead by example.
Posted on Sat Nov 10, 2007
Jennifer in Arkansas writes:
I don't have a comment and I don't read blogs but just trying to find a way to get in touch with Mr. John Matel or any other person who can assist in getting a diplomat government job in Iraq. What jobs are open in Iraq and what are the requirements!? If other people would like not to go over there, please, let me take their place. Please, somebody, find me a list of jobs. I'd be so happy to apply.
Posted on Sat Nov 10, 2007
I don't have a comment and I don't read blogs but just trying to find a way to get in touch with Mr. John Matel or any other person who can assist in getting a diplomat government job in Iraq. What jobs are open in Iraq and what are the requirements!? If other people would like not to go over there, please, let me take their place. Please, somebody, find me a list of jobs. I'd be so happy to apply.
Posted on Sat Nov 10, 2007
Bill in New Mexico writes:
@ Dan in Maryland -- I am bemused at your comment objecting to my cheap shots in response to a cheap shot. Have we become so sensitive that the cheap shot is the new lower limit to discourse and is not acceptable for on-line comment? In that case great swaths of the political spectrum must thereby go mute.
I have yet to locate your comment scolding "Bill from Minnesota" for his transgression. Would I be spending my time wisely to keep looking?
As for the gentlemen who were the subject of my comment, and with due respect to their service to the nation, I find many reasons to question their integrity. But this is all off topic...
Posted on Sat Nov 10, 2007
@ Dan in Maryland -- I am bemused at your comment objecting to my cheap shots in response to a cheap shot. Have we become so sensitive that the cheap shot is the new lower limit to discourse and is not acceptable for on-line comment? In that case great swaths of the political spectrum must thereby go mute.
I have yet to locate your comment scolding "Bill from Minnesota" for his transgression. Would I be spending my time wisely to keep looking?
As for the gentlemen who were the subject of my comment, and with due respect to their service to the nation, I find many reasons to question their integrity. But this is all off topic...
Posted on Sat Nov 10, 2007
Brad in Florida writes:
Mr. Matel:
First & foremost, thank you for your service.
As for your colleagues, perhaps State should replace the lot of them with retired military personnel. At least we'd know they wouldn't be afraid of serving, and if the reports we read about military officers day-to-day diplomacy are accurate, their 'real world' experience will more than make up for any shortage in "foreign service" time.
Oh, yeah - - - - your people sound like the very few folks who enlisted in the military for the college, etc. & wanted out when, you know, they were actually going to be asked to fight.
In short ... weenies.
Posted on Fri Nov 09, 2007
Mr. Matel:
First & foremost, thank you for your service.
As for your colleagues, perhaps State should replace the lot of them with retired military personnel. At least we'd know they wouldn't be afraid of serving, and if the reports we read about military officers day-to-day diplomacy are accurate, their 'real world' experience will more than make up for any shortage in "foreign service" time.
Oh, yeah - - - - your people sound like the very few folks who enlisted in the military for the college, etc. & wanted out when, you know, they were actually going to be asked to fight.
In short ... weenies.
Posted on Fri Nov 09, 2007
Lola in Florida writes:
I have a couple of friends in the Foreign Service whom have served in places like Mali, Chad, Nigeria, Haiti, Bangladesh and Ivory Coast in recent years and are now getting letters. In the effort of full disclosure, I have a couple of questions for you. 1) What was the last hardship post you served in before Iraq? 2) How much of your career have you spent in hardship countries?
Posted on Fri Nov 09, 2007
I have a couple of friends in the Foreign Service whom have served in places like Mali, Chad, Nigeria, Haiti, Bangladesh and Ivory Coast in recent years and are now getting letters. In the effort of full disclosure, I have a couple of questions for you. 1) What was the last hardship post you served in before Iraq? 2) How much of your career have you spent in hardship countries?
Posted on Fri Nov 09, 2007
Joe in Suriname writes:
What’s in a promise? Everything. Or at least that’s the way I think it should be. When I joined the Foreign Service in 1995, I signed an employment contract that stipulated I would be available to serve anywhere in the world, in any capacity the Department of State deemed necessary to the national interests. This contract was solemnized in the swearing in ceremony all Foreign Service Officers take. If this does not constitute a promise, I don’t know what does. It was the same promise I made when I entered the Army in 1981.
I understand why many of my Foreign Service colleagues are against directed assignments to Iraq. Having served there in 2004 and again in 2005 on temporary duty assignments, I know from personal experience that it is not a pleasant place. There are very real dangers, as has been sadly proven by the death of some of our colleagues. But character and its child “honor” dictate that a person lives up to their promises. Many in the Foreign Service have. A quarter of our total active duty strength has served there already.
But for those that are against it I would say, “you can’t have your cake and eat it too.” The Foreign Service receives a larger pension then our Civil Service colleagues. 1.7 percent rather than 1 percent. We also have the option of retiring at an earlier age, with less time in service. Fifty years old and twenty years of service, vice fifty-five with thirty years. This is because of the assumption that we face hardships and danger not normally associated with a Civil Service career. To make the promises and enjoy the prestige and financial benefits conferred with a Foreign Service career, and then to go back on the promise, reflects poorly on the individual and the Service.
It’s a two way street. Many who serve suffer from PTSD and physical injury. The government has a responsibility to care for these individuals in a way that places no financial burden on them or damage to their career.
Like the military of today we are all volunteers. You can’t pick and choose your wars. We bureaucrats have no right to make policy any more than our military colleagues do. Those decisions are left up to the highest authority in our land. The voter. When they vote their trust in the President and Congress, we are honor bound to accept the assignments given us.
If the objection to service in Iraq is moral you can resign without shame. If however it’s a matter of not wanting the hardships that go along with an assignment in a war zone, then you should convert to the Civil Service or go into private industry. Civil Servants do much of the good work done in our government, and your time would be well spent.
But don’t try and have it both ways. If you want to be a lumberjack you have to handle your end of the saw.
Posted on Fri Nov 09, 2007
What’s in a promise? Everything. Or at least that’s the way I think it should be. When I joined the Foreign Service in 1995, I signed an employment contract that stipulated I would be available to serve anywhere in the world, in any capacity the Department of State deemed necessary to the national interests. This contract was solemnized in the swearing in ceremony all Foreign Service Officers take. If this does not constitute a promise, I don’t know what does. It was the same promise I made when I entered the Army in 1981.
I understand why many of my Foreign Service colleagues are against directed assignments to Iraq. Having served there in 2004 and again in 2005 on temporary duty assignments, I know from personal experience that it is not a pleasant place. There are very real dangers, as has been sadly proven by the death of some of our colleagues. But character and its child “honor” dictate that a person lives up to their promises. Many in the Foreign Service have. A quarter of our total active duty strength has served there already.
But for those that are against it I would say, “you can’t have your cake and eat it too.” The Foreign Service receives a larger pension then our Civil Service colleagues. 1.7 percent rather than 1 percent. We also have the option of retiring at an earlier age, with less time in service. Fifty years old and twenty years of service, vice fifty-five with thirty years. This is because of the assumption that we face hardships and danger not normally associated with a Civil Service career. To make the promises and enjoy the prestige and financial benefits conferred with a Foreign Service career, and then to go back on the promise, reflects poorly on the individual and the Service.
It’s a two way street. Many who serve suffer from PTSD and physical injury. The government has a responsibility to care for these individuals in a way that places no financial burden on them or damage to their career.
Like the military of today we are all volunteers. You can’t pick and choose your wars. We bureaucrats have no right to make policy any more than our military colleagues do. Those decisions are left up to the highest authority in our land. The voter. When they vote their trust in the President and Congress, we are honor bound to accept the assignments given us.
If the objection to service in Iraq is moral you can resign without shame. If however it’s a matter of not wanting the hardships that go along with an assignment in a war zone, then you should convert to the Civil Service or go into private industry. Civil Servants do much of the good work done in our government, and your time would be well spent.
But don’t try and have it both ways. If you want to be a lumberjack you have to handle your end of the saw.
Posted on Fri Nov 09, 2007
Jim in Virginia writes:
Bravo, John!
As a retired FSO who served three years in wartime Vietnam and at several other hardship posts during times of conflict, I too was embarassed by the sentiments expressed at the town hall meeting. They do not reflect the Foreign Service I knew and loved.
For a very different viewpoint on directed assignments to Iraq, I invite readers of this blog to visit my editorial in American Diplomacy, an online professional journal, at: http://www.americandiplomacy.org.
Posted on Fri Nov 09, 2007
Bravo, John!
As a retired FSO who served three years in wartime Vietnam and at several other hardship posts during times of conflict, I too was embarassed by the sentiments expressed at the town hall meeting. They do not reflect the Foreign Service I knew and loved.
For a very different viewpoint on directed assignments to Iraq, I invite readers of this blog to visit my editorial in American Diplomacy, an online professional journal, at: http://www.americandiplomacy.org.
Posted on Fri Nov 09, 2007
Victor in Brazil writes:
Hello John,
In following the discussions with AFSA, etc. you may realize that what was really being discussed was a much larger issue: lack of support from management to FSOs in a variety of ways: transparency, the bidding process, consultation in decision-making, openness to feedback on policy (esp. HR) decisions, etc. All who viewed the remarks of the DG were flabbergasted at his crass handling of what are real concerns.
It is not about Iraq per se, in my view. It is about why our mission there is so large and has strained staffing levels everywhere else; it is also about doubts about the sustainability of our current foreign policy there, and the concern that you raised: are FSOs really being well-utilized in what is essentially a military operation by any other name? Of course, FSOs salute those who have and do bravely serve there; it is the larger context, which provokes so many questions and reactions.
Posted on Fri Nov 09, 2007
Hello John,
In following the discussions with AFSA, etc. you may realize that what was really being discussed was a much larger issue: lack of support from management to FSOs in a variety of ways: transparency, the bidding process, consultation in decision-making, openness to feedback on policy (esp. HR) decisions, etc. All who viewed the remarks of the DG were flabbergasted at his crass handling of what are real concerns.
It is not about Iraq per se, in my view. It is about why our mission there is so large and has strained staffing levels everywhere else; it is also about doubts about the sustainability of our current foreign policy there, and the concern that you raised: are FSOs really being well-utilized in what is essentially a military operation by any other name? Of course, FSOs salute those who have and do bravely serve there; it is the larger context, which provokes so many questions and reactions.
Posted on Fri Nov 09, 2007
Dan in Washington, DC writes:
@ Kat in Missouri -- Regarding your comments: "Maybe the DoS employees are behind the curve on understanding the current world situation. Increasingly, the places that are problems are nations are small, unstable, where the economy and political situation are marginal and where low intensity wars or even actual revolutions are taking place."
I’m a long-time State Department civil service employee, but what follows are my own personal views. You make some very good points, Kat. And, I agree with much what you say about how the world has changed. I will also agree with you that SOME State employees may be behind the curve in terms of the understanding and/or appreciating these changes in the international environment, and how this impacts U.S. diplomacy.
Nevertheless, I believe the vast and growing majority of State Department employees grasp how the world has changed. Moreover, these State employees who “get it” about the changes in world are also are leading the way and taking the steps necessary to adjust how the State Department’s operates, so as to provide winning U.S. diplomacy for today and into the future.
In this regard, the movement to change the State Department so that it effectively meets today’s global challenges, and makes the most of today’s international opportunities, has been strongly encouraged and endorsed by the top leaders at State for years now. Indeed, Secretary Rice has undertaken a significant effort to remake the Department and U.S. diplomacy. For example, in this 2006 Rice speech detailed her call for fundamental changes to the State Department, to where State's personnel are deployed around the world, and to the conduct of U.S. diplomacy as a whole -- an initiative she terms “transformational diplomacy” -- see http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2006/59306.htm .
The Department is also implementing a host of other initiatives designed to ensure effective and successful U.S. diplomacy in today’s increasingly interconnected, globalized and dangerous world. For example, the relatively new State Department Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization (see http://www.state.gov/s/crs/ ) was recently established to “lead, coordinate and institutionalize U.S. Government civilian capacity to prevent or prepare for post-conflict situations, and to help stabilize and reconstruct societies in transition from conflict or civil strife ...”
A further example of how State is changing is another new office in the Department -- the office that I currently work in -- which is named the “Office of e-Diplomacy,” (see http://www.state.gov/m/irm/c23839.htm ). The e-Diplomacy office was created to help ensure that State diplomats had the communications and knowledge management support they need for the successful conduct of U.S. diplomacy in the information age. One of e-diplomacy’s major initiatives is supporting the State Department’s “Virtual Presence Posts” program, which helps the Department broaden its engagement with key cities, communities, regions, and countries around the world without an American embassy or consulate building (see http://www.state.gov/m/irm/c23840.htm#vpps).
Further, I on my own have tried to do what I can to help bring about an altered State Department, so that it is better able and equipped to formulate and conduct U.S. diplomacy today and in the future. In this regard, “Kat in Missouri” expressed concern about a State Department that has “for many years” been caught in the “Cold War” thinking that has plagued the DoD.” I had some of the same concerns back in 1997 during an era that was often called with a lack of vision “the post-Cold War era.” And thus, with the Department’s clearance, I gave a presentation to a Department of State speakers program called “The Secretary’s Open Forum,” where I proposed a new term, a new agenda and appropriate changes for U.S. foreign policy, i.e., to work toward a “Fair Peace.” Following this speech and again with Department of State approval, I established my own web site (see an archived version of this web site at: http://web.archive.org/web/20040210181109/http://www.fairpeace.org/ ) to promote this idea. I even shared a copy of my speech/proposal a few years ago with then Secretary of State Colin Powell. Powell wrote back to me saying he found my ideas to be “interesting and still on-target.”
Finally, I would add that this Dipnote blog itself is indicative of the ways that the Department is changing for the better and adjusting to the challenges and opportunities of today. This new method for the open, free exchange of information via this blog helps the Department, its employees, U.S. citizens and people around the world engage in useful discussion about important diplomatic and foreign policy issues. That is a very good thing, and indeed a lot of what diplomacy to promote peace, prosperity and freedom is all about!
Posted on Fri Nov 09, 2007
@ Kat in Missouri -- Regarding your comments: "Maybe the DoS employees are behind the curve on understanding the current world situation. Increasingly, the places that are problems are nations are small, unstable, where the economy and political situation are marginal and where low intensity wars or even actual revolutions are taking place."
I’m a long-time State Department civil service employee, but what follows are my own personal views. You make some very good points, Kat. And, I agree with much what you say about how the world has changed. I will also agree with you that SOME State employees may be behind the curve in terms of the understanding and/or appreciating these changes in the international environment, and how this impacts U.S. diplomacy.
Nevertheless, I believe the vast and growing majority of State Department employees grasp how the world has changed. Moreover, these State employees who “get it” about the changes in world are also are leading the way and taking the steps necessary to adjust how the State Department’s operates, so as to provide winning U.S. diplomacy for today and into the future.
In this regard, the movement to change the State Department so that it effectively meets today’s global challenges, and makes the most of today’s international opportunities, has been strongly encouraged and endorsed by the top leaders at State for years now. Indeed, Secretary Rice has undertaken a significant effort to remake the Department and U.S. diplomacy. For example, in this 2006 Rice speech detailed her call for fundamental changes to the State Department, to where State's personnel are deployed around the world, and to the conduct of U.S. diplomacy as a whole -- an initiative she terms “transformational diplomacy” -- see http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2006/59306.htm .
The Department is also implementing a host of other initiatives designed to ensure effective and successful U.S. diplomacy in today’s increasingly interconnected, globalized and dangerous world. For example, the relatively new State Department Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization (see http://www.state.gov/s/crs/ ) was recently established to “lead, coordinate and institutionalize U.S. Government civilian capacity to prevent or prepare for post-conflict situations, and to help stabilize and reconstruct societies in transition from conflict or civil strife ...”
A further example of how State is changing is another new office in the Department -- the office that I currently work in -- which is named the “Office of e-Diplomacy,” (see http://www.state.gov/m/irm/c23839.htm ). The e-Diplomacy office was created to help ensure that State diplomats had the communications and knowledge management support they need for the successful conduct of U.S. diplomacy in the information age. One of e-diplomacy’s major initiatives is supporting the State Department’s “Virtual Presence Posts” program, which helps the Department broaden its engagement with key cities, communities, regions, and countries around the world without an American embassy or consulate building (see http://www.state.gov/m/irm/c23840.htm#vpps).
Further, I on my own have tried to do what I can to help bring about an altered State Department, so that it is better able and equipped to formulate and conduct U.S. diplomacy today and in the future. In this regard, “Kat in Missouri” expressed concern about a State Department that has “for many years” been caught in the “Cold War” thinking that has plagued the DoD.” I had some of the same concerns back in 1997 during an era that was often called with a lack of vision “the post-Cold War era.” And thus, with the Department’s clearance, I gave a presentation to a Department of State speakers program called “The Secretary’s Open Forum,” where I proposed a new term, a new agenda and appropriate changes for U.S. foreign policy, i.e., to work toward a “Fair Peace.” Following this speech and again with Department of State approval, I established my own web site (see an archived version of this web site at: http://web.archive.org/web/20040210181109/http://www.fairpeace.org/ ) to promote this idea. I even shared a copy of my speech/proposal a few years ago with then Secretary of State Colin Powell. Powell wrote back to me saying he found my ideas to be “interesting and still on-target.”
Finally, I would add that this Dipnote blog itself is indicative of the ways that the Department is changing for the better and adjusting to the challenges and opportunities of today. This new method for the open, free exchange of information via this blog helps the Department, its employees, U.S. citizens and people around the world engage in useful discussion about important diplomatic and foreign policy issues. That is a very good thing, and indeed a lot of what diplomacy to promote peace, prosperity and freedom is all about!
Posted on Fri Nov 09, 2007
CB in U.S.A. writes:
Thank you for posting, John. I followed a link to this blog, and have learned a lot about the U.S. Foreign Service.
I do wish that the comments would specify who is from outside the FS (as I am) and who is a FSO. But I've tried, and here's what I've picked up.
* Many --- if not most --- FSOs are dedicated servants of their country, and willing to follow the orders and administer the policy of the elected and appointed officials who have the authority to give orders and set policy. They are honorable professionals, and my hat's off to them.
* There are some who, when they don't like a policy, whine and complain. This is a sign of immaturity; they should be told to grow up (and provided assistance) or leave.
* There are some who, when they don't like a policy, actively work to subvert it. They are criminal frauds, and should be prosecuted for violating their oath of service. If the FS has an equivalent of a Dishonorable Discharge, they should receive one.
* The percentage of the honorable FSOs is probably higher in the "less plum" assignments than in Washington DC or some of the more "easy" assignments.
* There are some management issues within the Dept. of State that should be checked. Medical support for FSOs should apparently be a higher priority.
John, your blog has improved the reputation of the FSO as a whole in my own sight. I have a greater appreciation for the valuable work that you and your colleagues do. Thank you again for publishing.
Posted on Fri Nov 09, 2007
Thank you for posting, John. I followed a link to this blog, and have learned a lot about the U.S. Foreign Service.
I do wish that the comments would specify who is from outside the FS (as I am) and who is a FSO. But I've tried, and here's what I've picked up.
* Many --- if not most --- FSOs are dedicated servants of their country, and willing to follow the orders and administer the policy of the elected and appointed officials who have the authority to give orders and set policy. They are honorable professionals, and my hat's off to them.
* There are some who, when they don't like a policy, whine and complain. This is a sign of immaturity; they should be told to grow up (and provided assistance) or leave.
* There are some who, when they don't like a policy, actively work to subvert it. They are criminal frauds, and should be prosecuted for violating their oath of service. If the FS has an equivalent of a Dishonorable Discharge, they should receive one.
* The percentage of the honorable FSOs is probably higher in the "less plum" assignments than in Washington DC or some of the more "easy" assignments.
* There are some management issues within the Dept. of State that should be checked. Medical support for FSOs should apparently be a higher priority.
John, your blog has improved the reputation of the FSO as a whole in my own sight. I have a greater appreciation for the valuable work that you and your colleagues do. Thank you again for publishing.
Posted on Fri Nov 09, 2007
Mark writes:
Nice post. These FSO's refusing to help their comrades are also likely to be the ones who are hiding/burying/ignoring the evidence that was turned over to State Dept. post invasion about Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism (see http://www.regimeofterror.com).
Why do these people think they can make policy and not just carry out the policy of the elected officials?
Posted on Fri Nov 09, 2007
Nice post. These FSO's refusing to help their comrades are also likely to be the ones who are hiding/burying/ignoring the evidence that was turned over to State Dept. post invasion about Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism (see http://www.regimeofterror.com).
Why do these people think they can make policy and not just carry out the policy of the elected officials?
Posted on Fri Nov 09, 2007
Kat in Missouri writes:
@ Sally, Doug, et al --
I actually believe this is one of the better posts as a number of FSOs have responded. As a private citizen who is very interested in how our federal government operates, I am glad to see some internal discussions. There are many people who have questions about how we operate precisely because our efforts in many fields, particularly that of State diplomacy, are not transparent. Most of it happens "over there", in other nations so we have little information or exposure.
With former ambassadors and other national agency employees routinely leaving their posts due to disagreements with this policy or that, who routinely end up on the book lists or in op-ed pieces airing their views, not to mention this latest public dust up that was in the AP, we are left to wonder exactly how does an agency perform their functions successfully if the employees are in constant rebellion?
Further, with some apparent failures of diplomacy as well as some not so apparent successes, we are wondering what our national agencies are doing exactly to promote our interest and work towards our security. There is definitely nothing wrong with a little transparency even if some of the issues are embarrassing or have exposed something less than shiny and bright within the department.
Finally, this blog isn't just for the American people, though it's in english. There are people from around the world that routinely comment here. It is an opportunity for State to "mine" the opinions and thoughts of others to possibly foster a better understanding of the opinion of other nationals as well as ours in order to better formulate the message we wish to project and manage our relations with these nations.
A government or corporate blog is meant to develop direct communications between it's "customers" (we the people) and the entity. Believe it or not, the most successful at those efforts are those who do not shy away from controversy, but embrace it and address it head on. In fact, if John had not posted this response and Mr. Croddy's remarks had been left to stand in the public media without being addressed, the public's opinion of State would be more damaged than it is now. Right this second, this blog post has made it around the internet and probably been viewed in one form or another over a million times, providing a platform for State to balance their image nationally and internationally.
I doubt seriously Mr. Martel's career is in any more danger than it was at any other time. Unless, of course, Sally is implying that he risk's retaliation by higher ranking officials who disagree with his opinion? That is a serious issue and makes one question exactly what else goes on at State that we should be concerned about?
In the end, protectionism within the State department, whether that is territorial or ideological, is the real danger at State. The inability to think outside the box and bring new ideas or even to accept them leaves the department moribund and irrelevant.
That's why I like this blog. It's existence implies the total opposite.
Posted on Fri Nov 09, 2007
@ Sally, Doug, et al --
I actually believe this is one of the better posts as a number of FSOs have responded. As a private citizen who is very interested in how our federal government operates, I am glad to see some internal discussions. There are many people who have questions about how we operate precisely because our efforts in many fields, particularly that of State diplomacy, are not transparent. Most of it happens "over there", in other nations so we have little information or exposure.
With former ambassadors and other national agency employees routinely leaving their posts due to disagreements with this policy or that, who routinely end up on the book lists or in op-ed pieces airing their views, not to mention this latest public dust up that was in the AP, we are left to wonder exactly how does an agency perform their functions successfully if the employees are in constant rebellion?
Further, with some apparent failures of diplomacy as well as some not so apparent successes, we are wondering what our national agencies are doing exactly to promote our interest and work towards our security. There is definitely nothing wrong with a little transparency even if some of the issues are embarrassing or have exposed something less than shiny and bright within the department.
Finally, this blog isn't just for the American people, though it's in english. There are people from around the world that routinely comment here. It is an opportunity for State to "mine" the opinions and thoughts of others to possibly foster a better understanding of the opinion of other nationals as well as ours in order to better formulate the message we wish to project and manage our relations with these nations.
A government or corporate blog is meant to develop direct communications between it's "customers" (we the people) and the entity. Believe it or not, the most successful at those efforts are those who do not shy away from controversy, but embrace it and address it head on. In fact, if John had not posted this response and Mr. Croddy's remarks had been left to stand in the public media without being addressed, the public's opinion of State would be more damaged than it is now. Right this second, this blog post has made it around the internet and probably been viewed in one form or another over a million times, providing a platform for State to balance their image nationally and internationally.
I doubt seriously Mr. Martel's career is in any more danger than it was at any other time. Unless, of course, Sally is implying that he risk's retaliation by higher ranking officials who disagree with his opinion? That is a serious issue and makes one question exactly what else goes on at State that we should be concerned about?
In the end, protectionism within the State department, whether that is territorial or ideological, is the real danger at State. The inability to think outside the box and bring new ideas or even to accept them leaves the department moribund and irrelevant.
That's why I like this blog. It's existence implies the total opposite.
Posted on Fri Nov 09, 2007
Dan in Maryland writes:
@ Bill in New Mexico -- You said “Bill in Minnesota” took a cheap shot a President Bush for his comment about Bush’s service in the Texas Air National Guard during the Viet Nam war. I agree that "Bill in New Mexico’s" comments on Bush service was indeed a cheap shot. However, you then answered with a couple of cheap shots of your own regarding Senator Kerry’s and Vice President Gore’s war service in Viet Nam. All these cheap shots are most unfortunate and unfair. Indeed, whatever Bush’s, Kerry’s and Gore’s decisions and motivations were when they were young men, they all did in fact serve their nation in a time of war. Further, in future years they all continued to make tremendous personal sacrifices to serve our nation, and they even put their lives at risk by seeking to serve our nation as President. To question these men’s integrity and patriotism is a great and unjust insult to them, to their service to our nation, and to our nation itself. Such cheap shots are also beneath us as U.S. citizens.
Posted on Fri Nov 09, 2007
@ Bill in New Mexico -- You said “Bill in Minnesota” took a cheap shot a President Bush for his comment about Bush’s service in the Texas Air National Guard during the Viet Nam war. I agree that "Bill in New Mexico’s" comments on Bush service was indeed a cheap shot. However, you then answered with a couple of cheap shots of your own regarding Senator Kerry’s and Vice President Gore’s war service in Viet Nam. All these cheap shots are most unfortunate and unfair. Indeed, whatever Bush’s, Kerry’s and Gore’s decisions and motivations were when they were young men, they all did in fact serve their nation in a time of war. Further, in future years they all continued to make tremendous personal sacrifices to serve our nation, and they even put their lives at risk by seeking to serve our nation as President. To question these men’s integrity and patriotism is a great and unjust insult to them, to their service to our nation, and to our nation itself. Such cheap shots are also beneath us as U.S. citizens.
Posted on Fri Nov 09, 2007
Kristin in Iraq writes:
John congratulations on your well deserved promotion! I've been so sputteringly angry at the comments by some FS officers at the town hall meet and am glad that you've had put out the message that not all FSOs are unwilling to serve where needed. Good to have you on my western flank.
Posted on Fri Nov 09, 2007
John congratulations on your well deserved promotion! I've been so sputteringly angry at the comments by some FS officers at the town hall meet and am glad that you've had put out the message that not all FSOs are unwilling to serve where needed. Good to have you on my western flank.
Posted on Fri Nov 09, 2007
Dipnote Blogger John Matel writes:
@ Sally -- You probably took the wrong lesson or did not read carefully enough. It is about our duty as Foreign Service officers. If you read all of what I wrote, you know that I do not advocate sending the whole FS to Iraq. I understand that some people?s skills are better employed elsewhere. But I do not like it when the minority of my colleagues loudly make us all look bad at town hall meetings.
I also understand the subtle blog dig about the first tour and I will just reject the implication. I expect you well understand that the FS does not make first tour officers team leaders in Iraq.
Re my next assignment, I got a couple dozen emails from colleagues. Most were positive and told me that I said what they were thinking. Only two were really negative. I do not think that I will have too much trouble.
Besides, before I took the Iraq job, I specifically resolved NOT to be concerned about the next job so that I would not have to shave my activities to fit career prospects. I made no deals for the next job. I have dcne no lobbying and if it comes down to it, I can always retire and grow trees.
@ Doug in Minnesota -- Robin did not pay attention to my posts or the links. I did not call anyone unpatriotic, for example, and I mentioned that not everybody should come to Iraq.
I think that too many people are mixing politics with duty. People can disagree about Iraq policy, but surely we ALL want our country to succeed there. No matter what decisions were made in the past, we can only proceed from where we are today. I chose to do what I could to produce a better result. Others have the right to make different choices. But FSOs are supposed to be worldwide available and we do not get to make our own foreign policy.
If you are former FS, you know that few of us REALLY will be forced to go to Iraq. There will be enough volunteers. Those guys at the town hall did not have to be so loud.
@ Ted in Belgium & Lysa in Virginia -- Please see above. I agree with you.
@ Matt in Texas -- My experience in Iraq gives me a different impression. I get out regularly and talk to Iraqi of all sorts. My team members are out every day. We are helping set up NGOs, building the infrastructure for local government, working on reconciliation and helping the Iraqis repair their infrastructure. I cannot predict the future. It is possible we will not succeed. But we are doing the right thing here and we are working for peace and understanding. Maybe it is a small thing, but it is what we can do.
Remember, it is better to light one candle than to curse the darkness.
@ Elimoticky in Texas -- No matter what the politics, it is clearly in America's interest to succeed in Iraq. The macro-political decisions are made by elected leaders. FSOs do not have a direct part in that. We cannot change past decisions; we can only work to make the future better than the past.
Posted on Fri Nov 09, 2007
@ Sally -- You probably took the wrong lesson or did not read carefully enough. It is about our duty as Foreign Service officers. If you read all of what I wrote, you know that I do not advocate sending the whole FS to Iraq. I understand that some people?s skills are better employed elsewhere. But I do not like it when the minority of my colleagues loudly make us all look bad at town hall meetings.
I also understand the subtle blog dig about the first tour and I will just reject the implication. I expect you well understand that the FS does not make first tour officers team leaders in Iraq.
Re my next assignment, I got a couple dozen emails from colleagues. Most were positive and told me that I said what they were thinking. Only two were really negative. I do not think that I will have too much trouble.
Besides, before I took the Iraq job, I specifically resolved NOT to be concerned about the next job so that I would not have to shave my activities to fit career prospects. I made no deals for the next job. I have dcne no lobbying and if it comes down to it, I can always retire and grow trees.
@ Doug in Minnesota -- Robin did not pay attention to my posts or the links. I did not call anyone unpatriotic, for example, and I mentioned that not everybody should come to Iraq.
I think that too many people are mixing politics with duty. People can disagree about Iraq policy, but surely we ALL want our country to succeed there. No matter what decisions were made in the past, we can only proceed from where we are today. I chose to do what I could to produce a better result. Others have the right to make different choices. But FSOs are supposed to be worldwide available and we do not get to make our own foreign policy.
If you are former FS, you know that few of us REALLY will be forced to go to Iraq. There will be enough volunteers. Those guys at the town hall did not have to be so loud.
@ Ted in Belgium & Lysa in Virginia -- Please see above. I agree with you.
@ Matt in Texas -- My experience in Iraq gives me a different impression. I get out regularly and talk to Iraqi of all sorts. My team members are out every day. We are helping set up NGOs, building the infrastructure for local government, working on reconciliation and helping the Iraqis repair their infrastructure. I cannot predict the future. It is possible we will not succeed. But we are doing the right thing here and we are working for peace and understanding. Maybe it is a small thing, but it is what we can do.
Remember, it is better to light one candle than to curse the darkness.
@ Elimoticky in Texas -- No matter what the politics, it is clearly in America's interest to succeed in Iraq. The macro-political decisions are made by elected leaders. FSOs do not have a direct part in that. We cannot change past decisions; we can only work to make the future better than the past.
Posted on Fri Nov 09, 2007
Sally writes:
John,
Your comments are your own, granted. But I would question how this whole posting, this whole system of the "dipnote" contributes to the American public's knowledge of how foreign policy is made. In fact, you manage to make FSOs look bad by using your best diplo-speak in calling the "whiners""wimps and weenies." Is that really the best an American diplomat can do? If so, God help us.
I did actually learn something from this post. It has made me realize that there is actually a point to the whole clearance process. When someone is able to run amok online in his first tour...with no guidance from above...wow.
Good luck getting your next assignment!
Your friend,
Sally
Posted on Thu Nov 08, 2007
John,
Your comments are your own, granted. But I would question how this whole posting, this whole system of the "dipnote" contributes to the American public's knowledge of how foreign policy is made. In fact, you manage to make FSOs look bad by using your best diplo-speak in calling the "whiners""wimps and weenies." Is that really the best an American diplomat can do? If so, God help us.
I did actually learn something from this post. It has made me realize that there is actually a point to the whole clearance process. When someone is able to run amok online in his first tour...with no guidance from above...wow.
Good luck getting your next assignment!
Your friend,
Sally
Posted on Thu Nov 08, 2007
Doug in Minnesota writes:
I set out to draft a response to the OP and many of the comments. But Robin from Washington has done it for me. And for all of us.
All we FSOs and former FSOs (like me) who both honor John's service, and that of our colleagues and former colleages, in Iraq and elsewhere. All of us who heard about, or lived, the callous disregard shown for State and its expertise during the planning for a war of questionable necessity that is now consuming a great deal of American fortunes, lives and sacred honor and will do so for many, many years to come. All of us who publicly supported policies we neither made nor agreed with, because that was our job. All of us who honored the courage of our colleagues who spoke their minds, even when we did not agree with them. All of us who honored the positions of our leaders and their right to shape policy, even when we did not agree with them or their policies.
I would be saddened to see the proud Service to which I once belonged degenerate into a politicized corps of order-fillers to be dispatched to the latest war zone with targets on their backs. But as long as there are Jack Croddys -- and John Matels -- in that service, I trust that will never happen.
(But, John, responding to Robin's post with "you're not one of the complainers I'm so mad about so don't take it personally" is not adequate. Read it again, please. And please take it to heart.)
Posted on Thu Nov 08, 2007
I set out to draft a response to the OP and many of the comments. But Robin from Washington has done it for me. And for all of us.
All we FSOs and former FSOs (like me) who both honor John's service, and that of our colleagues and former colleages, in Iraq and elsewhere. All of us who heard about, or lived, the callous disregard shown for State and its expertise during the planning for a war of questionable necessity that is now consuming a great deal of American fortunes, lives and sacred honor and will do so for many, many years to come. All of us who publicly supported policies we neither made nor agreed with, because that was our job. All of us who honored the courage of our colleagues who spoke their minds, even when we did not agree with them. All of us who honored the positions of our leaders and their right to shape policy, even when we did not agree with them or their policies.
I would be saddened to see the proud Service to which I once belonged degenerate into a politicized corps of order-fillers to be dispatched to the latest war zone with targets on their backs. But as long as there are Jack Croddys -- and John Matels -- in that service, I trust that will never happen.
(But, John, responding to Robin's post with "you're not one of the complainers I'm so mad about so don't take it personally" is not adequate. Read it again, please. And please take it to heart.)
Posted on Thu Nov 08, 2007
Ted in Belgium writes:
I deeply abhor the public complaints about the plans for directed assignments to Iraq. The people in charge have the authority to send us where they want, whether we like it or not. It is a central tenet of our job. The broader question of whether our policy is wise or not is not something FSOs ought to be talking about in a public forum. We are servants of the government of the day, like it or not. People who strongly oppose this or any administration's policy should resign and use the numerous existing platforms to speak out as loudly as they want.
Posted on Thu Nov 08, 2007
I deeply abhor the public complaints about the plans for directed assignments to Iraq. The people in charge have the authority to send us where they want, whether we like it or not. It is a central tenet of our job. The broader question of whether our policy is wise or not is not something FSOs ought to be talking about in a public forum. We are servants of the government of the day, like it or not. People who strongly oppose this or any administration's policy should resign and use the numerous existing platforms to speak out as loudly as they want.
Posted on Thu Nov 08, 2007
Lysa in Virginia writes:
I just read John's email and I could not agree more. I have served overseas in the military and on a civil service detail in Iraq (just returned in June). Through my experience I have seen that an FSO's life is pretty sweet - that is why I joined up while still in Baghdad, knowing full well that that tour would not count towards my FS career and I could be sent back to Iraq again.
I think those that are sounding-off about this new policy need to take a step back in time and remember what it was that made them decide to join the FS in the first place.
I joined the Foreign Service for the same reason I joined the Air Force all those years ago - not to live the good life on the tax payers - to service my country.
I depart in two weeks for my first assignment in Nigeria. Interestingly enough, no one had bid for that job either. As John said, perhaps those that don't really want 'worldwide' service should investigate other opportunities.
One final note: everyone is saying the new policy is 'forcing' people to go to Iraq, I disagree. As FSOs we have a choice - go to Iraq or change careers. This choice is more than the soldiers in Iraq have and I don't hear them complaining - they are just doing their DUTY.
Posted on Thu Nov 08, 2007
I just read John's email and I could not agree more. I have served overseas in the military and on a civil service detail in Iraq (just returned in June). Through my experience I have seen that an FSO's life is pretty sweet - that is why I joined up while still in Baghdad, knowing full well that that tour would not count towards my FS career and I could be sent back to Iraq again.
I think those that are sounding-off about this new policy need to take a step back in time and remember what it was that made them decide to join the FS in the first place.
I joined the Foreign Service for the same reason I joined the Air Force all those years ago - not to live the good life on the tax payers - to service my country.
I depart in two weeks for my first assignment in Nigeria. Interestingly enough, no one had bid for that job either. As John said, perhaps those that don't really want 'worldwide' service should investigate other opportunities.
One final note: everyone is saying the new policy is 'forcing' people to go to Iraq, I disagree. As FSOs we have a choice - go to Iraq or change careers. This choice is more than the soldiers in Iraq have and I don't hear them complaining - they are just doing their DUTY.
Posted on Thu Nov 08, 2007
Matt in Texas writes:
"As diplomats, part of our work is to foster peace and understanding. We cannot always be assured that we will serve only in places where peace and understanding are already safely established."
Unfortunately there is a very narrow dipolomatic role in Iraq. Propping up a deeply divided elected government while occupying the country doesn't leave too much to talk about. It would also help if we had a large number of Arabic speaking diplomats. The Iraq Adventure is an ideological battle. Our President and his administration are the ideological gatekeepers. Diplomacy (fostering peace and understanding) is not an important component of this ideology. Therefore, a diplomat can spin their wheels in vain in Iraq with no chance at meaningful peace and understanding. Oh, and diplomacy might include Iran. Iran and Iraq have been deeply intertwined for much longer than the USA has been in existence. Turning our noses at them is unproductive. Threatening them is dangerous. Threatening them without any evidence that can be shown to the public? That's lunacy.
Posted on Thu Nov 08, 2007
"As diplomats, part of our work is to foster peace and understanding. We cannot always be assured that we will serve only in places where peace and understanding are already safely established."
Unfortunately there is a very narrow dipolomatic role in Iraq. Propping up a deeply divided elected government while occupying the country doesn't leave too much to talk about. It would also help if we had a large number of Arabic speaking diplomats. The Iraq Adventure is an ideological battle. Our President and his administration are the ideological gatekeepers. Diplomacy (fostering peace and understanding) is not an important component of this ideology. Therefore, a diplomat can spin their wheels in vain in Iraq with no chance at meaningful peace and understanding. Oh, and diplomacy might include Iran. Iran and Iraq have been deeply intertwined for much longer than the USA has been in existence. Turning our noses at them is unproductive. Threatening them is dangerous. Threatening them without any evidence that can be shown to the public? That's lunacy.
Posted on Thu Nov 08, 2007
Elimoticky in Texas writes:
To all people opposed to Bush`s war thingy. Do not go voluntarily.
Posted on Thu Nov 08, 2007
To all people opposed to Bush`s war thingy. Do not go voluntarily.
Posted on Thu Nov 08, 2007
Dipnote Blogger John Matel writes:
First a general note -- most of my colleagues are dedicated and patriotic. I was addressing my blog to the minority of complainers represented at the town hall meeting in the link I provided.
I also do not believe that everybody should be forced to come to Iraq. As I mentioned in my other linked article, a person skilled in French or Japanese might be much more useful to our country in Paris or Tokyo.
I am interested to find myself the subject of so much controversy. Bloggers on the right call me a hero and say I should be promoted. Bloggers on the left call me a chickenhawk and say I should be sent to Iraq myself. Both are wrong in their assessments and a little late in their advice. This should not be about politics. It is about what FSOs owe their country and their profession.
Finally, let me say absolutely that my opinions are only mine. Nobody asked me to express these sentiments. It is not part of some bigger plan. The truth is less interesting than the conspiracy theory. I was just annoyed when I read about the town hall meeting. I thought some of the speakers quoted in the media reports were just poorly informed about the actual situation in Iraq and I did not want to let it go. That’s it.
@ Nick in Kansas & Johnny in Belgium -- most FSOs do their duty. As I wrote above, I am talking to the minority of complainers.
@ Alex in Minnesota -- I am unwilling to give up on the people of Iraq. The change here is astonishing. I cannot predict the future, but your paradigm is definitely based on the past.
BTW -- I am far from macho. I own a hybrid; ride my bike to work (when in the U.S.) cannot properly shoot a gun and do not watch sports on TV. You may think it is macho to advocate the position I do. I do not.
@ Brant -- it is our job. I worked under Reagan, Bush, Clinton & GW Bush. I do not get to choose which I respect. I will (God willing) work for whomever is elected next year too. Do not make this political.
@ B -- I do not think ironic is the word you are searching for. I understand the risks of being here. There is a chance I could be killed. It would not be ironic, however.
@ Mike in New York -- You want to make this political. I am just talking about doing our job.
@ Robin in Washington -- Read through the post again and take a look at the links. I am not writing to all FSOs, just those complainers. Since you are not among them, you need not feel offended. You should have been offended to be associated with the complaints reported in the media from the town hall. I am just defending our honor.
@ Marine Mom in California -- Thanks and good luck.
@ Joe in Wisconsin -- I specifically linked to my previous article in the dipnote post. I expected people to read it. It is possible to believe both things. I do not advocate the whole FS go to Iraq. We are needed all over the world. My belief is that enough of my colleagues will volunteer to fill the positions. But the minority of complainers gives us a bad name.
@ Keith in U.S. -- Yes, people should also read that post. That is why I linked to it. It is not a one dimensional problems and my post is not a one dimensional post.
@ Gayle in Mexico -- Most of my colleagues do good work. I hope we are not judged by the weenies.
@ P in U.S.A. -- We can stand up to the administration as citizens; as FSOs we can and do dissent. But our jobs are to carry out the foreign policy of the U.S. We do not get to do only the things we personally support.
Your N. Korean image is badly flawed. Do you travel much?
@ JR in Iowa -- Thanks. I am unarmed in Iraq. My job is NOT to fight. It is to talk. The Marines take care of me and I trust them. We have that division of labor.
Posted on Thu Nov 08, 2007
First a general note -- most of my colleagues are dedicated and patriotic. I was addressing my blog to the minority of complainers represented at the town hall meeting in the link I provided.
I also do not believe that everybody should be forced to come to Iraq. As I mentioned in my other linked article, a person skilled in French or Japanese might be much more useful to our country in Paris or Tokyo.
I am interested to find myself the subject of so much controversy. Bloggers on the right call me a hero and say I should be promoted. Bloggers on the left call me a chickenhawk and say I should be sent to Iraq myself. Both are wrong in their assessments and a little late in their advice. This should not be about politics. It is about what FSOs owe their country and their profession.
Finally, let me say absolutely that my opinions are only mine. Nobody asked me to express these sentiments. It is not part of some bigger plan. The truth is less interesting than the conspiracy theory. I was just annoyed when I read about the town hall meeting. I thought some of the speakers quoted in the media reports were just poorly informed about the actual situation in Iraq and I did not want to let it go. That’s it.
@ Nick in Kansas & Johnny in Belgium -- most FSOs do their duty. As I wrote above, I am talking to the minority of complainers.
@ Alex in Minnesota -- I am unwilling to give up on the people of Iraq. The change here is astonishing. I cannot predict the future, but your paradigm is definitely based on the past.
BTW -- I am far from macho. I own a hybrid; ride my bike to work (when in the U.S.) cannot properly shoot a gun and do not watch sports on TV. You may think it is macho to advocate the position I do. I do not.
@ Brant -- it is our job. I worked under Reagan, Bush, Clinton & GW Bush. I do not get to choose which I respect. I will (God willing) work for whomever is elected next year too. Do not make this political.
@ B -- I do not think ironic is the word you are searching for. I understand the risks of being here. There is a chance I could be killed. It would not be ironic, however.
@ Mike in New York -- You want to make this political. I am just talking about doing our job.
@ Robin in Washington -- Read through the post again and take a look at the links. I am not writing to all FSOs, just those complainers. Since you are not among them, you need not feel offended. You should have been offended to be associated with the complaints reported in the media from the town hall. I am just defending our honor.
@ Marine Mom in California -- Thanks and good luck.
@ Joe in Wisconsin -- I specifically linked to my previous article in the dipnote post. I expected people to read it. It is possible to believe both things. I do not advocate the whole FS go to Iraq. We are needed all over the world. My belief is that enough of my colleagues will volunteer to fill the positions. But the minority of complainers gives us a bad name.
@ Keith in U.S. -- Yes, people should also read that post. That is why I linked to it. It is not a one dimensional problems and my post is not a one dimensional post.
@ Gayle in Mexico -- Most of my colleagues do good work. I hope we are not judged by the weenies.
@ P in U.S.A. -- We can stand up to the administration as citizens; as FSOs we can and do dissent. But our jobs are to carry out the foreign policy of the U.S. We do not get to do only the things we personally support.
Your N. Korean image is badly flawed. Do you travel much?
@ JR in Iowa -- Thanks. I am unarmed in Iraq. My job is NOT to fight. It is to talk. The Marines take care of me and I trust them. We have that division of labor.
Posted on Thu Nov 08, 2007
Josh in New York writes:
Shame on you Mr. Matel,
Or did the Bush team write this letter for you?
To call FSO's "wimps" and to say "that sort" is deeply offensive.
If FSO's are accomplishing really useful work in Iraq, helping to end this war, then say so, and make the case for them to come help out. If FSO's can connect with the citizens of Iraq, help build infrastructure, make sure more American tax payer dollars are not embezzled by Haliburton criminal CEO's, then make that case.
How dare you call FSO's "weenies" for not wanting to risk their lives accomplishing very little in support of a false war and occupation--alas--less than 30% of Americans support this war.
Shame on you. If you believe in the job and the "draft" of FSO's, make your case. Tell us about the important work you are doing, and why it is valuable.
Posted on Thu Nov 08, 2007
Shame on you Mr. Matel,
Or did the Bush team write this letter for you?
To call FSO's "wimps" and to say "that sort" is deeply offensive.
If FSO's are accomplishing really useful work in Iraq, helping to end this war, then say so, and make the case for them to come help out. If FSO's can connect with the citizens of Iraq, help build infrastructure, make sure more American tax payer dollars are not embezzled by Haliburton criminal CEO's, then make that case.
How dare you call FSO's "weenies" for not wanting to risk their lives accomplishing very little in support of a false war and occupation--alas--less than 30% of Americans support this war.
Shame on you. If you believe in the job and the "draft" of FSO's, make your case. Tell us about the important work you are doing, and why it is valuable.
Posted on Thu Nov 08, 2007
Keith in Ohio writes:
You chose not to post my previous submission showing a different side of Dipnote blogger Matel, as shown by his own non-spotlighted blog entries at here Why is this?
[Dipnote Bloggers write: The submission referred to above was indeed posted. See "Keith in U.S. writes..."]
Away from serving as poster child for macho FSOs, Matel wrote on October 20 that "I am not sure I like the idea of an expeditionary FS. I came to Iraq for a variety of reasons. The choice made sense to me. I would not have made the same choice when my kids were younger. Others make different choices. This is where my particular skills are currently best employed and I am proud to serve here, but it is very possible for someone to be doing more for our great country elsewhere. A diplomat who has become expert in Germany, France or Japan may better employ his skills in those pleasant places than in the deserts of Anbar."
Show some courage yourself and publish both sides of the story.
Posted on Thu Nov 08, 2007
You chose not to post my previous submission showing a different side of Dipnote blogger Matel, as shown by his own non-spotlighted blog entries at here Why is this?
[Dipnote Bloggers write: The submission referred to above was indeed posted. See "Keith in U.S. writes..."]
Away from serving as poster child for macho FSOs, Matel wrote on October 20 that "I am not sure I like the idea of an expeditionary FS. I came to Iraq for a variety of reasons. The choice made sense to me. I would not have made the same choice when my kids were younger. Others make different choices. This is where my particular skills are currently best employed and I am proud to serve here, but it is very possible for someone to be doing more for our great country elsewhere. A diplomat who has become expert in Germany, France or Japan may better employ his skills in those pleasant places than in the deserts of Anbar."
Show some courage yourself and publish both sides of the story.
Posted on Thu Nov 08, 2007
John in Tennessee writes:
Why do we even have a Department of State?
It's the 21st century and I'm not sure what a 14th century dinosaur has to do with anything. If the President needs to talk to the despot of Mudholistan, he can call him on his cell phone. You guys do know what a cell phone is?
As far as the entry level things an FSO does, hire some temps.
If America keeps a DoS, then the employees working there need to understand that their job is to advance the interests of the United States of America. Nothing else. If they want to decide what those interests are, they can run for office. Until elected (ha ha), you will take your orders and carry them out to the best of your ability. If you cannot do that, resign.
What is so hard about that? 200+ million other Americans and several million illegals manage to get by under those conditions.
Posted on Thu Nov 08, 2007
Why do we even have a Department of State?
It's the 21st century and I'm not sure what a 14th century dinosaur has to do with anything. If the President needs to talk to the despot of Mudholistan, he can call him on his cell phone. You guys do know what a cell phone is?
As far as the entry level things an FSO does, hire some temps.
If America keeps a DoS, then the employees working there need to understand that their job is to advance the interests of the United States of America. Nothing else. If they want to decide what those interests are, they can run for office. Until elected (ha ha), you will take your orders and carry them out to the best of your ability. If you cannot do that, resign.
What is so hard about that? 200+ million other Americans and several million illegals manage to get by under those conditions.
Posted on Thu Nov 08, 2007
Drew in the Dominican Republic writes:
I am a retired USAF officer who did several tours in Viet Nam where I first was introduced to the Foreign Service--and was impressed by their dedication and courage serving in the model village program. One of my first experiences in the Foreign Service as a JO was to deploy with a team of FSOs to Panama in Just Cause, where we came in 12 hrs after the invasion. Our EX-Director called me up at 2 AM and asked me to be the GSO for the operation since I had military experience and had been in a war zone. We came in to the Embassy which had been hit by RPGs and had all the windows blown out by Humvee through several fire fights. I spent the next 8 weeks putting the Chancery back in operation and cleaning up. Several times during this experience we took small arms fire and were virtually unprotected in the Embassy. Nevertheless, I again was impressed with my colleagues performance under very sever conditions, and there willingness to do very difficult jobs. There are a lot of FSOs out there who understand the need to do the tough jobs, and to do them well.
Given the demographics, for the foreseeable future, about 800 of us will have to serve in an unaccompanied or danger tour each year. That means that every FSO will have to do a 25% or higher differential post about twice a career if everyone does their fair share. We also have a lot of FSOs who simply will not serve and will leave if forced to. Time to say goodbye to them.
The Foreign Service is not an easy job. As a management officer I see the good and bad side of just about everyone and quite frankly we have a percentage of whiners who simply do not fit the rubric of today’s challenges. If forced to serve in hardship posts, they will leave and find jobs that more fit into their lifestyle. Most are not bad officers, but they came into the service under a misapprehension that they would server at their whim not the service’s need. Some will leave because while they signed up for worldwide duty, they are not willing to leave their families at this particular point in time. Unfortunately, we need everyone to pull their fair share, and if you are unwilling to do the heavy lifting, perhaps a career move is in order.
I am soon to retire the second time from my current job as Mgt. Counselor in Santo Domingo. I have been overseas for 19 of my 20 years in the Foreign Service -- all but one of those tours was in differential post, and continue to be impressed by some of my collogues who are willing to do anything and go anywhere when asked. I have also been dismayed and bemused by others who can’t seem to arrange for a cable hookup or move a piece of furniture unaided. To make this new Foreign Service work we need to cull these officers out of the herd and gently push them into the civilian work force.
Posted on Thu Nov 08, 2007
I am a retired USAF officer who did several tours in Viet Nam where I first was introduced to the Foreign Service--and was impressed by their dedication and courage serving in the model village program. One of my first experiences in the Foreign Service as a JO was to deploy with a team of FSOs to Panama in Just Cause, where we came in 12 hrs after the invasion. Our EX-Director called me up at 2 AM and asked me to be the GSO for the operation since I had military experience and had been in a war zone. We came in to the Embassy which had been hit by RPGs and had all the windows blown out by Humvee through several fire fights. I spent the next 8 weeks putting the Chancery back in operation and cleaning up. Several times during this experience we took small arms fire and were virtually unprotected in the Embassy. Nevertheless, I again was impressed with my colleagues performance under very sever conditions, and there willingness to do very difficult jobs. There are a lot of FSOs out there who understand the need to do the tough jobs, and to do them well.
Given the demographics, for the foreseeable future, about 800 of us will have to serve in an unaccompanied or danger tour each year. That means that every FSO will have to do a 25% or higher differential post about twice a career if everyone does their fair share. We also have a lot of FSOs who simply will not serve and will leave if forced to. Time to say goodbye to them.
The Foreign Service is not an easy job. As a management officer I see the good and bad side of just about everyone and quite frankly we have a percentage of whiners who simply do not fit the rubric of today’s challenges. If forced to serve in hardship posts, they will leave and find jobs that more fit into their lifestyle. Most are not bad officers, but they came into the service under a misapprehension that they would server at their whim not the service’s need. Some will leave because while they signed up for worldwide duty, they are not willing to leave their families at this particular point in time. Unfortunately, we need everyone to pull their fair share, and if you are unwilling to do the heavy lifting, perhaps a career move is in order.
I am soon to retire the second time from my current job as Mgt. Counselor in Santo Domingo. I have been overseas for 19 of my 20 years in the Foreign Service -- all but one of those tours was in differential post, and continue to be impressed by some of my collogues who are willing to do anything and go anywhere when asked. I have also been dismayed and bemused by others who can’t seem to arrange for a cable hookup or move a piece of furniture unaided. To make this new Foreign Service work we need to cull these officers out of the herd and gently push them into the civilian work force.
Posted on Thu Nov 08, 2007
Dipnote Blogger John Matel writes:
Thanks for all the nice comments. I will respond to some later. For now I have got to run. This job has a lot of travel.
Posted on Thu Nov 08, 2007
Thanks for all the nice comments. I will respond to some later. For now I have got to run. This job has a lot of travel.
Posted on Thu Nov 08, 2007
Antony in Austrailia writes:
The whole controversy demonstrates that of all elements of the U.S. government, only the military has sufficient moral, intellectual and physical capacity to sort out Iraq's problems.
Posted on Thu Nov 08, 2007
The whole controversy demonstrates that of all elements of the U.S. government, only the military has sufficient moral, intellectual and physical capacity to sort out Iraq's problems.
Posted on Thu Nov 08, 2007
Kenneth in Iraq writes:
Well said.
My initial reaction to Mr Croddy's woe was "man up, Nancy boy." I appreciate your reviewing the issue in less visceral terms.
Having served in Iraq, you can look back on life and honestly say that you've done your share. You've sacrificed for others. You've been tested, and you've passed.
Well done.
Posted on Thu Nov 08, 2007
Well said.
My initial reaction to Mr Croddy's woe was "man up, Nancy boy." I appreciate your reviewing the issue in less visceral terms.
Having served in Iraq, you can look back on life and honestly say that you've done your share. You've sacrificed for others. You've been tested, and you've passed.
Well done.
Posted on Thu Nov 08, 2007
M in Iraq writes:
The real problem in Iraq, (no strategy to rebuild this country) for give the Iraqi people hope to future. The first work must build new strategy include solutions can apply it in Iraq.
Posted on Thu Nov 08, 2007
The real problem in Iraq, (no strategy to rebuild this country) for give the Iraqi people hope to future. The first work must build new strategy include solutions can apply it in Iraq.
Posted on Thu Nov 08, 2007
Vince in Germany write:
John,
It's good to hear from you.
I'm personally torn on this issue. I'm not sure there are any precedents of extensive Foreign Service requirements for a comparable security situation. The kinds of patriots joining the U.S. military have a different risk/effectiveness calculus than the kinds of patriots who join the Foreign Service. And the screening process for the Foreign Service is considerably more selective than the most elite military units, taking decades to groom. The nation each year grooms 200,000 young Americans to serve in the armed forces. The nation grooms fewer than 1,000 young Americans to serve as Foreign Service Officers. The expectations are different, so it's not fair to compare joining the Marines to being selected and trained to be an American diplomat who is a personal representative of the President of the United States.
Take care.
Posted on Thu Nov 08, 2007
John,
It's good to hear from you.
I'm personally torn on this issue. I'm not sure there are any precedents of extensive Foreign Service requirements for a comparable security situation. The kinds of patriots joining the U.S. military have a different risk/effectiveness calculus than the kinds of patriots who join the Foreign Service. And the screening process for the Foreign Service is considerably more selective than the most elite military units, taking decades to groom. The nation each year grooms 200,000 young Americans to serve in the armed forces. The nation grooms fewer than 1,000 young Americans to serve as Foreign Service Officers. The expectations are different, so it's not fair to compare joining the Marines to being selected and trained to be an American diplomat who is a personal representative of the President of the United States.
Take care.
Posted on Thu Nov 08, 2007
AM in Texas writes:
The murder rate for 2006 in Washington, D.C. was 29.1 per 100,000 according to disastercenter.com - http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm. In Iraq, approximately 841 servicemen and women have died each year according to Iraq Coalition Casualities - http://icasualties.org/oif/, some 20% or so from non-war-related causes (accidents, illness, etc.).
I don't think anyone is keeping a death rate per 100,000 service people in Iraq, but I doubt any rational person would argue that Iraq is safer than Washington, D.C., at least not yet.
As for the idiots who think the Iraq war is a failure, they should stop reading the NY Times and read something that reports facts, like say Michael Yon.
John, thank you for your courage and your willingness to serve our country. Thank God there are many more like you at State.
As for the whiny FSO who asked who would care for his family if he died, one can only hope that was not the first time he's asked the question and that he's made the proper plans to care for them if he dies.
After all, he could die crossing the street in any town in the world or driving home from work. One would hope he would not leave his family destitute.
Posted on Thu Nov 08, 2007
The murder rate for 2006 in Washington, D.C. was 29.1 per 100,000 according to disastercenter.com - http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm. In Iraq, approximately 841 servicemen and women have died each year according to Iraq Coalition Casualities - http://icasualties.org/oif/, some 20% or so from non-war-related causes (accidents, illness, etc.).
I don't think anyone is keeping a death rate per 100,000 service people in Iraq, but I doubt any rational person would argue that Iraq is safer than Washington, D.C., at least not yet.
As for the idiots who think the Iraq war is a failure, they should stop reading the NY Times and read something that reports facts, like say Michael Yon.
John, thank you for your courage and your willingness to serve our country. Thank God there are many more like you at State.
As for the whiny FSO who asked who would care for his family if he died, one can only hope that was not the first time he's asked the question and that he's made the proper plans to care for them if he dies.
After all, he could die crossing the street in any town in the world or driving home from work. One would hope he would not leave his family destitute.
Posted on Thu Nov 08, 2007
John in Kansas writes:
@ Robin in Washington, DC -- Robin in Washington, DC wrote:
"But what I resent most is doing all this for fellow citizens, and worst of all, a fellow Foreign Service Officer who knows better, who question my patriotism. Shame on you."
--------------------------------------------
Geez, Robin, the word "patriotism" or any even oblique reference to it does not appear in John Matel's post. As a federal employee myself, I would like FSO's yo do their job's, uphold your oath of office, or resign.
Posted on Thu Nov 08, 2007
@ Robin in Washington, DC -- Robin in Washington, DC wrote:
"But what I resent most is doing all this for fellow citizens, and worst of all, a fellow Foreign Service Officer who knows better, who question my patriotism. Shame on you."
--------------------------------------------
Geez, Robin, the word "patriotism" or any even oblique reference to it does not appear in John Matel's post. As a federal employee myself, I would like FSO's yo do their job's, uphold your oath of office, or resign.
Posted on Thu Nov 08, 2007
Larry in California writes:
Imagine getting your marching orders into a war zone from CNN and not from your boss. That's rude and downright disrespectful.
I think a lot of the anger in the town hall meeting was directed at senior management at State for surprising many of the midlevel officers with an overnight order to go to Iraq without bothering to tell them personally. And then the senior management tells them that they only get two weeks of training before they go. Most junior officers get at least 6 weeks of training before they even hit the visa line. And people who are entering a war zone get two?! Come on. That's fly-by-night management as a byproduct of the poor planning for the war.
And don't question the duty and patriotism of the Foreign Service! Over a fifth of the Corps have volunteered, I repeat volunteered, for service in war zones. If more than a fifth of our active military service personnel were made to serve on the frontlines of a war zone, you will see some the same grumblings that you've seen at State. In fact, a record number of midlevel military officers have already left the service.
Do I want to go to Iraq? Heck no, and most of you wouldn't either. But if called upon, I would most likely go. That's the sentiment I hear over and over again among FSOs, midlevel military officers, and other agency officials. But if I go, I hope my superiors will prepare me properly. And hopefully I'll find out about my assignment directly from my supervisors and not from the Washington Post.
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
Imagine getting your marching orders into a war zone from CNN and not from your boss. That's rude and downright disrespectful.
I think a lot of the anger in the town hall meeting was directed at senior management at State for surprising many of the midlevel officers with an overnight order to go to Iraq without bothering to tell them personally. And then the senior management tells them that they only get two weeks of training before they go. Most junior officers get at least 6 weeks of training before they even hit the visa line. And people who are entering a war zone get two?! Come on. That's fly-by-night management as a byproduct of the poor planning for the war.
And don't question the duty and patriotism of the Foreign Service! Over a fifth of the Corps have volunteered, I repeat volunteered, for service in war zones. If more than a fifth of our active military service personnel were made to serve on the frontlines of a war zone, you will see some the same grumblings that you've seen at State. In fact, a record number of midlevel military officers have already left the service.
Do I want to go to Iraq? Heck no, and most of you wouldn't either. But if called upon, I would most likely go. That's the sentiment I hear over and over again among FSOs, midlevel military officers, and other agency officials. But if I go, I hope my superiors will prepare me properly. And hopefully I'll find out about my assignment directly from my supervisors and not from the Washington Post.
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
Henry in Iowa writes:
Two and a half years ago, at age 18, my son declined the opportunity to enroll in college, in order to join the Marine Corps as an infantryman. Unlike Jack Croddy, he did not analyze whether he agreed with our nation's foreign policy. He did not attempt to negotiate his future assignment. He understood that military service to his country would mean following orders and going wherever his democratically elected leaders would send him. Unlike Jack Croddy, my son understood the concept of democracy, as taught in his high school civics class.
He also knew that his enlistment would mean deployment to a war-torn Iraq. He returned from his first deployment last April. He is scheduled to return next spring.
His parents spent a lot of time worrying about him, and will again during his next deployment. If you have the slightest power of imagination, you can probably guess how we felt when we saw FSO Jack Croddy vehemently reject the suggestion that State Department employees, who enjoy pretty nice careers by comparison to enlisted servicemen, should be required to serve in any nation where they do not "agree" with our foreign policy.
Jack Croddy, and every FSO of his thinking, is unfit for duty in this nation's Foreign Service. I am happy that Croddy and his fellow travelers have identified themselves. I would hate to think that my son might serve in a country where someone like Croddy would be jeopardizing my son's life and safety -- not to mention the vital interests of the country he is sworn to serve.
However I deeply resent that my tax dollars continue to pay the salaries and considerable benefits of FSOs who are so patently unfit for service to their country.
Jack Croddy and his ilk should do the honorable thing and resign. Otherwise, they should be fired.
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
Two and a half years ago, at age 18, my son declined the opportunity to enroll in college, in order to join the Marine Corps as an infantryman. Unlike Jack Croddy, he did not analyze whether he agreed with our nation's foreign policy. He did not attempt to negotiate his future assignment. He understood that military service to his country would mean following orders and going wherever his democratically elected leaders would send him. Unlike Jack Croddy, my son understood the concept of democracy, as taught in his high school civics class.
He also knew that his enlistment would mean deployment to a war-torn Iraq. He returned from his first deployment last April. He is scheduled to return next spring.
His parents spent a lot of time worrying about him, and will again during his next deployment. If you have the slightest power of imagination, you can probably guess how we felt when we saw FSO Jack Croddy vehemently reject the suggestion that State Department employees, who enjoy pretty nice careers by comparison to enlisted servicemen, should be required to serve in any nation where they do not "agree" with our foreign policy.
Jack Croddy, and every FSO of his thinking, is unfit for duty in this nation's Foreign Service. I am happy that Croddy and his fellow travelers have identified themselves. I would hate to think that my son might serve in a country where someone like Croddy would be jeopardizing my son's life and safety -- not to mention the vital interests of the country he is sworn to serve.
However I deeply resent that my tax dollars continue to pay the salaries and considerable benefits of FSOs who are so patently unfit for service to their country.
Jack Croddy and his ilk should do the honorable thing and resign. Otherwise, they should be fired.
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
Kat in Missouri writes:
Maybe the DoS employees are behind the curve on understanding the current world situation. State may need to invest in some seminars and speakers, such as TP Barnett, to review the major problem areas that are the most likely to impact the security of this nation. Increasingly, the places that are problems are nations are small, unstable, where the economy and political situation are marginal and where low intensity wars or even actual revolutions are taking place.
It is in these places that the overall situation is risky and the state government has limited control that terrorist organizations can base and act against the U.S. and our economic and political interests. They work to destabilize these governments and foment violence where, not only is government control limited, but economic and political limitations abet their cause.
These places present significant risk for FSOs even while they are not in all out war or otherwise disintegrated. It is in these places that our foreign service is the most important and where dedicated and experienced FSOs are most needed. It is not simply just a stepping stone to more choice assignments. It is the real and vital interests of the United States. While rewards for such service, such as less risky or more accommodating nations, are certainly viable and acceptable, it should be these more riskier positions that are sought by FSOs because they represent the true capabilities, the pinnacle of service.
FSOs are needed in riskier nations in order to better represent American interests, to better provide information and liaise with these nations, to better provide the political and economic assistance required to insure that these nations remain diplomatic issues and not causes for military intervention.
This requires the State Department and employees to turn their thinking on its head. For many years, State has been caught in the "Cold War" thinking that has plagued the DoD. Thus, the focus for state has remained largely on first and second tier nations as the most dangerous or imperative to our security. While these nations remain important, the terrorist acts of 9/11 and others before or since indicate otherwise.
We need stabilization efforts that are much more robust in these third world nations. We need State and FSOs to recognize the "diplomacy" paradigm is greatly changed. I think that is the problem, not a question of whether someone "believes" in the mission of "Iraq" or not, but whether they believe in the new "mission" at all.
If not, I must echo the other sentiments expressed here: resign or don't sign up at all.
State can help this along by bringing in outside expertise or even FSOs who have been working in these many "riskier" third world nations to explain how they are now equally or more important than the "cold war" states to our security. Although, I also have to admit that the last six years would seem to have provided that information and focus, thus any FSOs refusal to accept that is pure obstinance.
May I recommend the book "Who moved my cheese?" be distributed en masse?
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
Maybe the DoS employees are behind the curve on understanding the current world situation. State may need to invest in some seminars and speakers, such as TP Barnett, to review the major problem areas that are the most likely to impact the security of this nation. Increasingly, the places that are problems are nations are small, unstable, where the economy and political situation are marginal and where low intensity wars or even actual revolutions are taking place.
It is in these places that the overall situation is risky and the state government has limited control that terrorist organizations can base and act against the U.S. and our economic and political interests. They work to destabilize these governments and foment violence where, not only is government control limited, but economic and political limitations abet their cause.
These places present significant risk for FSOs even while they are not in all out war or otherwise disintegrated. It is in these places that our foreign service is the most important and where dedicated and experienced FSOs are most needed. It is not simply just a stepping stone to more choice assignments. It is the real and vital interests of the United States. While rewards for such service, such as less risky or more accommodating nations, are certainly viable and acceptable, it should be these more riskier positions that are sought by FSOs because they represent the true capabilities, the pinnacle of service.
FSOs are needed in riskier nations in order to better represent American interests, to better provide information and liaise with these nations, to better provide the political and economic assistance required to insure that these nations remain diplomatic issues and not causes for military intervention.
This requires the State Department and employees to turn their thinking on its head. For many years, State has been caught in the "Cold War" thinking that has plagued the DoD. Thus, the focus for state has remained largely on first and second tier nations as the most dangerous or imperative to our security. While these nations remain important, the terrorist acts of 9/11 and others before or since indicate otherwise.
We need stabilization efforts that are much more robust in these third world nations. We need State and FSOs to recognize the "diplomacy" paradigm is greatly changed. I think that is the problem, not a question of whether someone "believes" in the mission of "Iraq" or not, but whether they believe in the new "mission" at all.
If not, I must echo the other sentiments expressed here: resign or don't sign up at all.
State can help this along by bringing in outside expertise or even FSOs who have been working in these many "riskier" third world nations to explain how they are now equally or more important than the "cold war" states to our security. Although, I also have to admit that the last six years would seem to have provided that information and focus, thus any FSOs refusal to accept that is pure obstinance.
May I recommend the book "Who moved my cheese?" be distributed en masse?
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
Eric in New Mexico writes:
@ John Matel --
I think DoS is suffering from growing pains. The whole personel (HR) outlook from outsourcing security to war time assignment protocols needs the review of the ages to adapt to this age, and as well to the people that serve in its ranks, and the interests of this nation.
It may be that some have an Owellian idea "Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what's for lunch." about serving; but on the whole going "outside the wire" without a gun is well....what makes a diplomat a diplomat. Takes guts.
I took the FSO written exam along with some 15,000 others for 400 some odd positions a few years back, assuming worldwide assignment was a reality, and not always by choice.
Wonder if the OBO folks still need someone that "has paintbrush, will travel"?
I see in the next 5 years, the need for double the number of active FSO's to fill the need for PRT's, R&A, country desks, and other positions critical to resolving crisis.
DoS will have need for diplomatic force protection at levels commensurate and should not hire private security firms, period.
Rather I believe that it becomes manageable and probably ethically sound if Diplomatic Security will become a separately funded entity but a "mission responsive" agency to the DoS itself in keeping with its role.
I'm not so sure about DoS fielding its own army....might be diplomatically incorrect, eh?..(chuckle). But hey, at the HR level..."An Embassy of one." right?
Attitude is everything.
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
@ John Matel --
I think DoS is suffering from growing pains. The whole personel (HR) outlook from outsourcing security to war time assignment protocols needs the review of the ages to adapt to this age, and as well to the people that serve in its ranks, and the interests of this nation.
It may be that some have an Owellian idea "Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what's for lunch." about serving; but on the whole going "outside the wire" without a gun is well....what makes a diplomat a diplomat. Takes guts.
I took the FSO written exam along with some 15,000 others for 400 some odd positions a few years back, assuming worldwide assignment was a reality, and not always by choice.
Wonder if the OBO folks still need someone that "has paintbrush, will travel"?
I see in the next 5 years, the need for double the number of active FSO's to fill the need for PRT's, R&A, country desks, and other positions critical to resolving crisis.
DoS will have need for diplomatic force protection at levels commensurate and should not hire private security firms, period.
Rather I believe that it becomes manageable and probably ethically sound if Diplomatic Security will become a separately funded entity but a "mission responsive" agency to the DoS itself in keeping with its role.
I'm not so sure about DoS fielding its own army....might be diplomatically incorrect, eh?..(chuckle). But hey, at the HR level..."An Embassy of one." right?
Attitude is everything.
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
Bill in New Mexico writes:
Being a low level bureaucrat in another department, my impression of the Department of State at least from the time that "W" took office has been one of childish and arrogant petulance. Many of the old hands at state are under the false impression that their job is to determine foreign policy and naturally assume that it should conform to their political prejudices. However, the constitution reposes that responsibility solely in the duly elected executive. That is why you are called civil SERVANTS. You may feel utter contempt for the president, as I do for his predecessor, but you have not been elected to anything and as such he is the boss and he sets foreign policy. That's how it works in a representative democracy. If you decide that you will not support his policies in the accomplishment of your duties the only honorable (look it up) course is to resign. If you actively work to undercut or sabotage his policies you are committing an act of treachery not only against that one man, but also against the nation which elected him. This is true even if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy. At a minimum such a person would have violated their oath of office and is no longer fit to continue in their position. Merely my opinion, but a little humility from the pin stripers would be quite refreshing.
And a word to cheap shot Bill in Minnesota, there were numerous ways to stay safe in Viet Nam such as being a phony correspondent with your own corps of bodyguards, or writing up your own Purple Heart citations so you could bug out early. But when things went pear shaped there was no way to escape the danger in a century series jet and it made no difference if it was a regular Air Force or a National Guard plane. Many men better than you gave their lives in F-102s.
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
Being a low level bureaucrat in another department, my impression of the Department of State at least from the time that "W" took office has been one of childish and arrogant petulance. Many of the old hands at state are under the false impression that their job is to determine foreign policy and naturally assume that it should conform to their political prejudices. However, the constitution reposes that responsibility solely in the duly elected executive. That is why you are called civil SERVANTS. You may feel utter contempt for the president, as I do for his predecessor, but you have not been elected to anything and as such he is the boss and he sets foreign policy. That's how it works in a representative democracy. If you decide that you will not support his policies in the accomplishment of your duties the only honorable (look it up) course is to resign. If you actively work to undercut or sabotage his policies you are committing an act of treachery not only against that one man, but also against the nation which elected him. This is true even if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy. At a minimum such a person would have violated their oath of office and is no longer fit to continue in their position. Merely my opinion, but a little humility from the pin stripers would be quite refreshing.
And a word to cheap shot Bill in Minnesota, there were numerous ways to stay safe in Viet Nam such as being a phony correspondent with your own corps of bodyguards, or writing up your own Purple Heart citations so you could bug out early. But when things went pear shaped there was no way to escape the danger in a century series jet and it made no difference if it was a regular Air Force or a National Guard plane. Many men better than you gave their lives in F-102s.
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
Tom writes:
It is hard to rock the boat and not go overboard. Especially with the internet today - what comes around goes around. I think that the war with Iraq is a big mess and is turning into another small scale vietnam. It is like a disease that we need to wash our hands of and remove ourselves from. What right do we have to force democracy upon these people if most of them apparently want nothing to do with it?
Here's a great article which shows the real percentages of people that don't wash their hands after going to the bathroom and how many don't have the slightest idea of how to properly wash their hands - you may think twice about shaking some strangers hand after this:
Proper hand washing 101 and why its important from Bestskinpeel.com
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
It is hard to rock the boat and not go overboard. Especially with the internet today - what comes around goes around. I think that the war with Iraq is a big mess and is turning into another small scale vietnam. It is like a disease that we need to wash our hands of and remove ourselves from. What right do we have to force democracy upon these people if most of them apparently want nothing to do with it?
Here's a great article which shows the real percentages of people that don't wash their hands after going to the bathroom and how many don't have the slightest idea of how to properly wash their hands - you may think twice about shaking some strangers hand after this:
Proper hand washing 101 and why its important from Bestskinpeel.com
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
Gary in Virginia writes:
All the comments about this letter are fascinating. It seems that FSOs are both (1) unpatriotic civilian wimps disloyal to the Bush administration, and (2) neo-con chicken hawks. Apparently, expressing raucous contempt for the Foreign Service is one of those rare bi-partisan things that bring together all Americans regardless of their political leanings.
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
All the comments about this letter are fascinating. It seems that FSOs are both (1) unpatriotic civilian wimps disloyal to the Bush administration, and (2) neo-con chicken hawks. Apparently, expressing raucous contempt for the Foreign Service is one of those rare bi-partisan things that bring together all Americans regardless of their political leanings.
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
Mike in Florida writes:
I can’t understand how so many of posters, call Iraq a failure. Maybe, just maybe, most of them are DoS employees, who expect just the prestige of DoS, but not the responsibilities. If I understand right, al FSOs had full knowledge of what was expected from them. Then, what is the problem? But, again, maybe none of them worked in private sector. Only this can explain this so called "revolt". From my point of view, anyone who doesn’t like the job what for is getting paid by his employer, can resign. Their resignation will help paying of the deficit. And by my experience with government, more than half of them are paid way too much, just to fill out tones of papers in a nice office. If this (war is lost, Iraq is a failure) is true, why they still working in those nice offices? Why they didn’t resign already?
As long they took an oath, they have to keep it, otherwise is considered treason.
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
I can’t understand how so many of posters, call Iraq a failure. Maybe, just maybe, most of them are DoS employees, who expect just the prestige of DoS, but not the responsibilities. If I understand right, al FSOs had full knowledge of what was expected from them. Then, what is the problem? But, again, maybe none of them worked in private sector. Only this can explain this so called "revolt". From my point of view, anyone who doesn’t like the job what for is getting paid by his employer, can resign. Their resignation will help paying of the deficit. And by my experience with government, more than half of them are paid way too much, just to fill out tones of papers in a nice office. If this (war is lost, Iraq is a failure) is true, why they still working in those nice offices? Why they didn’t resign already?
As long they took an oath, they have to keep it, otherwise is considered treason.
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
Benjamin in South Carolina wrtes
John Matel and Sec. Rice,
Please accept this brief resume. I would be honored to take the place of any FSO who does not want to pull duty in Iraq. I have a BA in Psychology and an MA in International Security and Conflict Studies and I am the Director of the Organization for Public Diplomacy. I would go through normal channels but I don't meet all of the inane administrative requirements for a FSO candidate.
I am immediately available and look forward to your response.
Kind Regards.
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
John Matel and Sec. Rice,
Please accept this brief resume. I would be honored to take the place of any FSO who does not want to pull duty in Iraq. I have a BA in Psychology and an MA in International Security and Conflict Studies and I am the Director of the Organization for Public Diplomacy. I would go through normal channels but I don't meet all of the inane administrative requirements for a FSO candidate.
I am immediately available and look forward to your response.
Kind Regards.
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
Dan writes:
A welcome rejoinder to the outraged/terrified responses from those who may be "directed." Frankly, these people - much like the Bush Lied! Iraq is Lost! types above - are an embarrassment to our nation, and provide unfortunate evidence for military claims that they are the only element of the government fighting this war. Whether or not that is true is immaterial in light of what a citizen such as myself can only regard as insubordination by these unwilling State Department officials. What are we to expect of our government? Insubordination? Inter-departmental political enervation of executive and legislative policies? Perhaps we should devolved into full-blown Oriental fratricide so that "the Revolution" will triumph? What is this bullshit? Who are these cowards?
There should be a summary purge. Perhaps these people would rather engage in consulting hedge funds in the private sector - extraordinarily profitable, and much safer.
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
A welcome rejoinder to the outraged/terrified responses from those who may be "directed." Frankly, these people - much like the Bush Lied! Iraq is Lost! types above - are an embarrassment to our nation, and provide unfortunate evidence for military claims that they are the only element of the government fighting this war. Whether or not that is true is immaterial in light of what a citizen such as myself can only regard as insubordination by these unwilling State Department officials. What are we to expect of our government? Insubordination? Inter-departmental political enervation of executive and legislative policies? Perhaps we should devolved into full-blown Oriental fratricide so that "the Revolution" will triumph? What is this bullshit? Who are these cowards?
There should be a summary purge. Perhaps these people would rather engage in consulting hedge funds in the private sector - extraordinarily profitable, and much safer.
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
Bill in Minnesota writes:
I know that it is hard to take a assignment in the middle of a national civil war... But if you don't want to serve in a war zone:
You should have joined the Texas Air National Guard...
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
I know that it is hard to take a assignment in the middle of a national civil war... But if you don't want to serve in a war zone:
You should have joined the Texas Air National Guard...
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
Nick in Kansas writes:
The reason I have proposed a corps of FSOs who can be ordered anywhere at anytime -- without them being able to bail out by resigning or retiring -- is that it would give the Department a better, more efficient capacity to manage assignments to Iraq and similar places. It creates double the work and some chaos when the Department attempts to place an officer in a hazardous post, only to have him resign. If in addition to volunteers there are corps of officers who can be absolutely counted on to take their orders and go to a bad post, it makes planning and execution a whole lot easier. National planners (State) would still have the back up of ordering the "normal" type of FSO to the hard to fill slots, with the discipline that they would be fired if they do not accept.
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
The reason I have proposed a corps of FSOs who can be ordered anywhere at anytime -- without them being able to bail out by resigning or retiring -- is that it would give the Department a better, more efficient capacity to manage assignments to Iraq and similar places. It creates double the work and some chaos when the Department attempts to place an officer in a hazardous post, only to have him resign. If in addition to volunteers there are corps of officers who can be absolutely counted on to take their orders and go to a bad post, it makes planning and execution a whole lot easier. National planners (State) would still have the back up of ordering the "normal" type of FSO to the hard to fill slots, with the discipline that they would be fired if they do not accept.
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
W writes:
"Wimps" and "Weenies", eh? With diplomatic skills like these one wonders how Iraq isn't a functional democracy already.
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
"Wimps" and "Weenies", eh? With diplomatic skills like these one wonders how Iraq isn't a functional democracy already.
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
Johnny in Belgium writes:
@ Nick from Kansas -- Do we really need a new, small corps of DoS employees for these types of missions? Why not just enforce their current oaths of office? If they don't want to serve in hardship locations, then they should not take a job calling for world-wide service. And why would you need to throw extra pay at them? DoS already has a system of providing extra pay for such posts - those serving at difficult posts already get paid more.....much more. I can't tell you how many DoS folks told me they took their current post because it offered such a great differential but really wasn't that bad a location. Well, the pay is supposedly because the posting is bad, so if you take the pay, then take the difficulties associated with it. Come on, DoS, follow this bloggers lead and either do your duty for your country or get out. Trying to set up (or should I say pay off) a small cadre of folks to do the tough duty is repulsive. All DoS officers should be willing to take this duty or resign their commission.
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
@ Nick from Kansas -- Do we really need a new, small corps of DoS employees for these types of missions? Why not just enforce their current oaths of office? If they don't want to serve in hardship locations, then they should not take a job calling for world-wide service. And why would you need to throw extra pay at them? DoS already has a system of providing extra pay for such posts - those serving at difficult posts already get paid more.....much more. I can't tell you how many DoS folks told me they took their current post because it offered such a great differential but really wasn't that bad a location. Well, the pay is supposedly because the posting is bad, so if you take the pay, then take the difficulties associated with it. Come on, DoS, follow this bloggers lead and either do your duty for your country or get out. Trying to set up (or should I say pay off) a small cadre of folks to do the tough duty is repulsive. All DoS officers should be willing to take this duty or resign their commission.
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
Alex in Minnesota writes:
Here's the problem. Iraq is lost, we never had it to begin with. Here are the numbers: 82% of Iraqi's have little to no confidence in coalition forces, 79% of Iraqi's say there are not enough jobs as they have all been awarded to foreign contractors, 88% say the availability of electricity is poor, 69% say they have little to no clean drinking water, 64% say Iraq's economic situation is bad, 88% say there is little to no fuel for cooking or driving despite Wolfowitz claiming this very industry would finance reconstruction either in part or in whole, 75% say they have little to no freedom of movement within the country, 67% say reconstruction is going poorly, 76% say coalition forces are not performing satisfactorily, 78% want coalition forces out of the country, 69% say our continued presence only makes things worse. Now, take all those numbers and pretend they apply to America and decide for yourself whether or not this is an acceptable way for a nation to exist.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/19_03_07_iraqpollnew.pdf
In addition to this your macho attitude in regards to your colleagues is part of the problem, not the solution. Bear in mind, promotion of machismo is one of the 14 fundamental elements to the formation of fascist state. By resorting to your macho attitude you are in fact promoting a misguided and ultimately detrimental fascist ideology.
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
Here's the problem. Iraq is lost, we never had it to begin with. Here are the numbers: 82% of Iraqi's have little to no confidence in coalition forces, 79% of Iraqi's say there are not enough jobs as they have all been awarded to foreign contractors, 88% say the availability of electricity is poor, 69% say they have little to no clean drinking water, 64% say Iraq's economic situation is bad, 88% say there is little to no fuel for cooking or driving despite Wolfowitz claiming this very industry would finance reconstruction either in part or in whole, 75% say they have little to no freedom of movement within the country, 67% say reconstruction is going poorly, 76% say coalition forces are not performing satisfactorily, 78% want coalition forces out of the country, 69% say our continued presence only makes things worse. Now, take all those numbers and pretend they apply to America and decide for yourself whether or not this is an acceptable way for a nation to exist.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/19_03_07_iraqpollnew.pdf
In addition to this your macho attitude in regards to your colleagues is part of the problem, not the solution. Bear in mind, promotion of machismo is one of the 14 fundamental elements to the formation of fascist state. By resorting to your macho attitude you are in fact promoting a misguided and ultimately detrimental fascist ideology.
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
Brant writes:
I am a citizen, and I see no more reason that diplomats should be forced into service of a lie, than I would feel that soldiers should. I think your fellow State Department personnel showed some courage, and I think that you should respect them for that. There is no honor in being a lemming, for the sake of being a lemming.
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
I am a citizen, and I see no more reason that diplomats should be forced into service of a lie, than I would feel that soldiers should. I think your fellow State Department personnel showed some courage, and I think that you should respect them for that. There is no honor in being a lemming, for the sake of being a lemming.
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
HH writes:
"part of our work is to foster peace and understanding"
How's that workin' out? Oh, right Iraq is a bloody catastrophe, and I'm sure the best way to fix that is to feed a few paper-pushers into the meat grinder. We can probably resolve a centuries old civil war with a few more FSOs. Why not? They've already broken the spirit of everybody in State, Intelligence, Defense, Interior, etc.
To equate Iraq with any other post by saying people die all over is the sort of sophistry this administration used to get us into the mess in the first place. This is a situation many of us advised against, and now the administration reaction is "Well I've gotten us this far, have I not?"
Putting aside the issue of danger, everyone knows that post is a career-killer. In the best of all possible worlds the government collapses, new elections are held and we have Palestine all over again (only instead of Hamas in charge, it's Iran.) More likely, we either directly or through inaction back another strong-arm dictator so that we can devote all our resources to desperately try to keep Afghanistan and Pakistan from becoming the next failed states. Oh, I'll surely want my name all over that plan. Isn't bad enough we're implicated in the worst foreign policy since Johnson?
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
"part of our work is to foster peace and understanding"
How's that workin' out? Oh, right Iraq is a bloody catastrophe, and I'm sure the best way to fix that is to feed a few paper-pushers into the meat grinder. We can probably resolve a centuries old civil war with a few more FSOs. Why not? They've already broken the spirit of everybody in State, Intelligence, Defense, Interior, etc.
To equate Iraq with any other post by saying people die all over is the sort of sophistry this administration used to get us into the mess in the first place. This is a situation many of us advised against, and now the administration reaction is "Well I've gotten us this far, have I not?"
Putting aside the issue of danger, everyone knows that post is a career-killer. In the best of all possible worlds the government collapses, new elections are held and we have Palestine all over again (only instead of Hamas in charge, it's Iran.) More likely, we either directly or through inaction back another strong-arm dictator so that we can devote all our resources to desperately try to keep Afghanistan and Pakistan from becoming the next failed states. Oh, I'll surely want my name all over that plan. Isn't bad enough we're implicated in the worst foreign policy since Johnson?
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
B writes:
"Calling Iraq a death sentence is just way over the top."
Gosh; it's going to be kind of ironic if you get killed over there.
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
"Calling Iraq a death sentence is just way over the top."
Gosh; it's going to be kind of ironic if you get killed over there.
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
Mike in New York writes:
I think the "wimps and weenies" might be a better description of all the Republicans--George Bush, Dick Cheney et al--who have no problem with sending soldiers and State Department workers to possible death and disfigurement in Iraq but who never, ever serve. Your scorn is misplaced, sir--it should be directed at war-mongering Republicans.
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
I think the "wimps and weenies" might be a better description of all the Republicans--George Bush, Dick Cheney et al--who have no problem with sending soldiers and State Department workers to possible death and disfigurement in Iraq but who never, ever serve. Your scorn is misplaced, sir--it should be directed at war-mongering Republicans.
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
Robin in Washington, DC writes:
John, I'm sorry, but I have to say, shame on you. You have spouted off in a way that may make you feel superior, and certainly will win kudos from many readers, but in no way adds to a better understanding of the issues. Your entry does not respect the sincere and professional concerns of your colleagues and adds to misperceptions about our so often misrepresented profession.
I honor the service of the men and women of the military. I've worked with them, trained with them, and helped them get recognition for their efforts. But I am not in the military, I have no training for working in a combat zone, and worry about, among other things, being a burden to them, or even putting them in danger.
John, rather than chide your colleagues, use your blog to describe your day, tell how your presence is making a difference, why you feel your service in Iraq is the best use of your time and training, and of the unbelievable resources needed to get and keep you there. Justify, if you can, why nearly 20% of the entire Foreign Service of the United States is being directed to that one beleaguered country -- leaving many other vulnerable parts of the world to devolve into anti-Americanism unchecked, because we cannot afford to keep those posts fully staffed. That would be more useful than taunting others and implying that our concerns are unpatriotic, unfounded or wimpy.
Shame on you. I have, as have most of my colleagues, and most of the officers you know, served in many posts, including some of the poorest countries on the world, countries wracked by disease-- in one post nearly 30% of my own office staff died in a four year period. I've sat in an HIV ward holding the hand of my dying secretary, then moved two beds away to visit another colleague. I've taken dirty clothes from my staff's flood ravaged homes to my house to launder, and lived in zones prone to malaria, cholera, and other diseases. My family has worried about me as I took off again and again for places that they never heard of, and that were hard to reach (I've been doing this since long before most posts had e-mail). Most of us have been far away when family members died; many have missed the birth of their own children or had to make difficult decisions about taking those children into "hardship" posts, or had to let them go away to school in some distant land because there were no schools at post. We've lived without our spouses, or they have sacrificed their own careers to be with us, serving our country along side us, but unrewarded.
I've lived in smoky houses (from the neighbor's fireplace blowing into my upper floor apartment), in crime areas, with a huge open sewer next to my house, with rats in my yard, and lived through an earthquake. I've helped my local staff deal with bomb threats, riots, natural disasters and family emergencies. I've lived without dependable electricity and running water.
I do this because I have had a chance to see my efforts help another country, and it's citizens and leaders move into a better place developmentally, and a closer relationship with the United States; because I'm in place to help Americans and American interests when the need arises, and because my being there on the ground helps important information come back to policy makers in the United States, and to our broader society. I do this because every time I go to a new post, my whole circle of acquaintances learns about a new country. I do it because I love it, even when I hate it.
Anyone who chooses this job because they think it is glamorous or cushy is wrong. There are fun moments, and thrilling moments, and moments when you get to see some place, or event that takes your breath away. But it is often hard, frequently lonely, almost always challenging, and, given the promotion system, does not provide much in the way of job security. I've had too many shots, traveled in some pretty scary aircraft, lost too many personal belongs, and given up much that others would consider important for a "normal" life, and I deeply resent being called a wimp because I, like many others, hope not to have to serve in Iraq. But what I resent most is doing all this for fellow citizens, and worst of all, a fellow Foreign Service Officer who knows better, who question my patriotism. Shame on you.
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
John, I'm sorry, but I have to say, shame on you. You have spouted off in a way that may make you feel superior, and certainly will win kudos from many readers, but in no way adds to a better understanding of the issues. Your entry does not respect the sincere and professional concerns of your colleagues and adds to misperceptions about our so often misrepresented profession.
I honor the service of the men and women of the military. I've worked with them, trained with them, and helped them get recognition for their efforts. But I am not in the military, I have no training for working in a combat zone, and worry about, among other things, being a burden to them, or even putting them in danger.
John, rather than chide your colleagues, use your blog to describe your day, tell how your presence is making a difference, why you feel your service in Iraq is the best use of your time and training, and of the unbelievable resources needed to get and keep you there. Justify, if you can, why nearly 20% of the entire Foreign Service of the United States is being directed to that one beleaguered country -- leaving many other vulnerable parts of the world to devolve into anti-Americanism unchecked, because we cannot afford to keep those posts fully staffed. That would be more useful than taunting others and implying that our concerns are unpatriotic, unfounded or wimpy.
Shame on you. I have, as have most of my colleagues, and most of the officers you know, served in many posts, including some of the poorest countries on the world, countries wracked by disease-- in one post nearly 30% of my own office staff died in a four year period. I've sat in an HIV ward holding the hand of my dying secretary, then moved two beds away to visit another colleague. I've taken dirty clothes from my staff's flood ravaged homes to my house to launder, and lived in zones prone to malaria, cholera, and other diseases. My family has worried about me as I took off again and again for places that they never heard of, and that were hard to reach (I've been doing this since long before most posts had e-mail). Most of us have been far away when family members died; many have missed the birth of their own children or had to make difficult decisions about taking those children into "hardship" posts, or had to let them go away to school in some distant land because there were no schools at post. We've lived without our spouses, or they have sacrificed their own careers to be with us, serving our country along side us, but unrewarded.
I've lived in smoky houses (from the neighbor's fireplace blowing into my upper floor apartment), in crime areas, with a huge open sewer next to my house, with rats in my yard, and lived through an earthquake. I've helped my local staff deal with bomb threats, riots, natural disasters and family emergencies. I've lived without dependable electricity and running water.
I do this because I have had a chance to see my efforts help another country, and it's citizens and leaders move into a better place developmentally, and a closer relationship with the United States; because I'm in place to help Americans and American interests when the need arises, and because my being there on the ground helps important information come back to policy makers in the United States, and to our broader society. I do this because every time I go to a new post, my whole circle of acquaintances learns about a new country. I do it because I love it, even when I hate it.
Anyone who chooses this job because they think it is glamorous or cushy is wrong. There are fun moments, and thrilling moments, and moments when you get to see some place, or event that takes your breath away. But it is often hard, frequently lonely, almost always challenging, and, given the promotion system, does not provide much in the way of job security. I've had too many shots, traveled in some pretty scary aircraft, lost too many personal belongs, and given up much that others would consider important for a "normal" life, and I deeply resent being called a wimp because I, like many others, hope not to have to serve in Iraq. But what I resent most is doing all this for fellow citizens, and worst of all, a fellow Foreign Service Officer who knows better, who question my patriotism. Shame on you.
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
Marine Mom in California writes:
I am with you John!! As my name states my Marines would be thinking what "weenies"!!
Your colleague who made the statement that it was a death sentence and also said that 'some do not agree with', I think he said the policy or something to that effect.
Guess what?? Some of the Marines and other armed forces do not either. You sign up for a job, you think you are going after the terrorist (as mine do/did) and the mission gets changed. Too bad! That is what I told my kids. When they joined the military, I told them 'it was not a democracy' that they joined. One man with the assistance of others makes the decisions, and you follow the orders.
I have one going over in January and another in February. I do however feel for the families, like us moms and dad's we did not 'join', we are the ones who have been drafted. :)
If all three are to be there at the same time, there are not enough drugs produced that will keep me together. I personally thank God that they are not Army, Reserves or National Guard who has to serve the 15 month tours.
God Bless and all we can do now is pray. Elections are now less than a year away, and hopefully, our mission will change.
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
I am with you John!! As my name states my Marines would be thinking what "weenies"!!
Your colleague who made the statement that it was a death sentence and also said that 'some do not agree with', I think he said the policy or something to that effect.
Guess what?? Some of the Marines and other armed forces do not either. You sign up for a job, you think you are going after the terrorist (as mine do/did) and the mission gets changed. Too bad! That is what I told my kids. When they joined the military, I told them 'it was not a democracy' that they joined. One man with the assistance of others makes the decisions, and you follow the orders.
I have one going over in January and another in February. I do however feel for the families, like us moms and dad's we did not 'join', we are the ones who have been drafted. :)
If all three are to be there at the same time, there are not enough drugs produced that will keep me together. I personally thank God that they are not Army, Reserves or National Guard who has to serve the 15 month tours.
God Bless and all we can do now is pray. Elections are now less than a year away, and hopefully, our mission will change.
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
Joe in Wisconsin writes:
John,
Have things really changed that much for your since October 20? You have altered your tune a bit since you posted the following on your personal blog (johnsonmatel.com):
"I am not sure I like the idea of an expeditionary FS. I came to Iraq for a variety of reasons. The choice made sense to me. I would not have made the same choice when my kids were younger. Others make different choices. This is where my particular skills are currently best employed and I am proud to serve here, but it is very possible for someone to be doing more for our great country elsewhere . . . Some pleasant jobs are also very demanding and important. There is no virtue in making him come here out of some fairness principle or promoting him slower even if he shows real accomplishments. Most of my colleagues in Iraq disagree, but what does “fair” mean? Is it fair to get promoted just for living in a hardship? . . . I think it should matter what you do, not where you were."
C'mon John!
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
John,
Have things really changed that much for your since October 20? You have altered your tune a bit since you posted the following on your personal blog (johnsonmatel.com):
"I am not sure I like the idea of an expeditionary FS. I came to Iraq for a variety of reasons. The choice made sense to me. I would not have made the same choice when my kids were younger. Others make different choices. This is where my particular skills are currently best employed and I am proud to serve here, but it is very possible for someone to be doing more for our great country elsewhere . . . Some pleasant jobs are also very demanding and important. There is no virtue in making him come here out of some fairness principle or promoting him slower even if he shows real accomplishments. Most of my colleagues in Iraq disagree, but what does “fair” mean? Is it fair to get promoted just for living in a hardship? . . . I think it should matter what you do, not where you were."
C'mon John!
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
Ketih in U.S. writes:
Please also include these comments from Mr. Matel, drawn from his Iraq blog at http://johnsonmatel.com/blog1/2007/10/we_few_we_happy_few.html
We had a talk by the director general of the FS. He thanked us for our service and listened to our complaints/comments. He assured the group that those fat-cats currently sitting in comfortable offices will soon be asked to do their part. (And gentlemen in England now-a-bed Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here, And hold their manhoods cheap...sorry it just seemed appropriate) State Department has up till now managed to staff its Iraq positions with volunteers, but it is getting harder. There are only 6500 Foreign Service generalists and the director says that 20% of us have already been to Iraq or Afghanistan. Neverthelesss, some of the people who volunteer do not have the needed skills and some of the people with the needed skills do not volunteer and since there are no very many of us in general, staffing is an issue.
We are becoming an expeditionary service. I am not sure I like the idea of an expeditionary FS. I came to Iraq for a variety of reasons. The choice made sense to me. I would not have made the same choice when my kids were younger. Others make different choices. This is where my particular skills are currently best employed and I am proud to serve here, but it is very possible for someone to be doing more for our great country elsewhere. A diplomat who has become expert in Germany, France or Japan may better employ his skills in those pleasant places than in the deserts of Anbar. (he which hath no stomach to this fight, Let him depart) Some pleasant jobs are also very demanding and important. There is no virtue in making him come here out of some fairness principle or promoting him slower even if he shows real accomplishments. Most of my colleagues in Iraq disagree, but what does "fair" mean? Is it fair to get promoted just for living in a hardship? The fact that I can withstand desiccating winds does not by itself indicate competence. I think it should matter what you do, not where you were. Having actually withstood those desiccating winds, even for the short time, I can say that w/o fear of being marked as a malingerer or a mollycoddle, but I think it is true.
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
Please also include these comments from Mr. Matel, drawn from his Iraq blog at http://johnsonmatel.com/blog1/2007/10/we_few_we_happy_few.html
We had a talk by the director general of the FS. He thanked us for our service and listened to our complaints/comments. He assured the group that those fat-cats currently sitting in comfortable offices will soon be asked to do their part. (And gentlemen in England now-a-bed Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here, And hold their manhoods cheap...sorry it just seemed appropriate) State Department has up till now managed to staff its Iraq positions with volunteers, but it is getting harder. There are only 6500 Foreign Service generalists and the director says that 20% of us have already been to Iraq or Afghanistan. Neverthelesss, some of the people who volunteer do not have the needed skills and some of the people with the needed skills do not volunteer and since there are no very many of us in general, staffing is an issue.
We are becoming an expeditionary service. I am not sure I like the idea of an expeditionary FS. I came to Iraq for a variety of reasons. The choice made sense to me. I would not have made the same choice when my kids were younger. Others make different choices. This is where my particular skills are currently best employed and I am proud to serve here, but it is very possible for someone to be doing more for our great country elsewhere. A diplomat who has become expert in Germany, France or Japan may better employ his skills in those pleasant places than in the deserts of Anbar. (he which hath no stomach to this fight, Let him depart) Some pleasant jobs are also very demanding and important. There is no virtue in making him come here out of some fairness principle or promoting him slower even if he shows real accomplishments. Most of my colleagues in Iraq disagree, but what does "fair" mean? Is it fair to get promoted just for living in a hardship? The fact that I can withstand desiccating winds does not by itself indicate competence. I think it should matter what you do, not where you were. Having actually withstood those desiccating winds, even for the short time, I can say that w/o fear of being marked as a malingerer or a mollycoddle, but I think it is true.
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
CW in Tennessee writes:
@ Charles in Tennessee -- Dishonest Charles in Tennesse is a liar and made up the following stats:
"60 deaths per 100,000 occupants per month in Washington, DC
40 deaths per 100,000 military per month in Iraq"
A quick shows DC murder rate is 29 per 100K occupants in 2006 based on FBI 2006 UCR data. And that is for normal civilians in DC . Our military personnel are heavily armed, travel in teams, and protected at virtually all times by the compound, their vehicle, and their fellow soldiers and still they dying at an alarming rate - making 2007 already the deadliest year with 2 months to go.
And with 852 dead this year so far and 156,000 troops in Iraq, basic math would show that the death rate per 100,000 soldier is an astonishing 516, not 40.
Charles in Tennessee apparently have a disregard for the warriors of this country. You go and explain to the 852 soldiers' families (or close to 4000 American soliders) how their son and daughters, their father and mothers died so keyboard heroes like Charles can claim how safe they are in Iraq as opposed to home in U.S.
How about this Charles: 99% of the keyboard bloggers calling FSO wimps are cowards.
Is this stat correct?
If so, perhaps the you should be sent to Iraq too and guard the FSOs. If not, donate a percent of your salary to the dead soliders' families.
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
@ Charles in Tennessee -- Dishonest Charles in Tennesse is a liar and made up the following stats:
"60 deaths per 100,000 occupants per month in Washington, DC
40 deaths per 100,000 military per month in Iraq"
A quick shows DC murder rate is 29 per 100K occupants in 2006 based on FBI 2006 UCR data. And that is for normal civilians in DC . Our military personnel are heavily armed, travel in teams, and protected at virtually all times by the compound, their vehicle, and their fellow soldiers and still they dying at an alarming rate - making 2007 already the deadliest year with 2 months to go.
And with 852 dead this year so far and 156,000 troops in Iraq, basic math would show that the death rate per 100,000 soldier is an astonishing 516, not 40.
Charles in Tennessee apparently have a disregard for the warriors of this country. You go and explain to the 852 soldiers' families (or close to 4000 American soliders) how their son and daughters, their father and mothers died so keyboard heroes like Charles can claim how safe they are in Iraq as opposed to home in U.S.
How about this Charles: 99% of the keyboard bloggers calling FSO wimps are cowards.
Is this stat correct?
If so, perhaps the you should be sent to Iraq too and guard the FSOs. If not, donate a percent of your salary to the dead soliders' families.
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
Gayle in Mexico writes:
I totally agree with John. Sadly, any place can quickly become a war zone. Look at the two bombed embassies, the bomb in the church in Islamabad, residential area in Riyadh and the attack on the consulate in Jeddah. Anyplace in the world can quickly become dangerous. We have lost more Foreign Service officers in other places in the world than we have in Iraq. We all sign to be "worldwide available" period. There aren't conditions attached and it saddens me that people no longer are willing to do service to their country unless it is on their terms. I applaud John and all of his colleagues who do the tough posts; not just Iraq, but Afghanistan, Israel, Pakistan, etc. Thank you for your bravery and service.
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
I totally agree with John. Sadly, any place can quickly become a war zone. Look at the two bombed embassies, the bomb in the church in Islamabad, residential area in Riyadh and the attack on the consulate in Jeddah. Anyplace in the world can quickly become dangerous. We have lost more Foreign Service officers in other places in the world than we have in Iraq. We all sign to be "worldwide available" period. There aren't conditions attached and it saddens me that people no longer are willing to do service to their country unless it is on their terms. I applaud John and all of his colleagues who do the tough posts; not just Iraq, but Afghanistan, Israel, Pakistan, etc. Thank you for your bravery and service.
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
James in Texas writes:
I an not DOS I am USCIS, I would go in a heart beat, Trade with me, if you know how or can make it happen. I am a retired Army Sergeant Major, I understand commitment and sacrifice. I would rather be there in DCUs than here in a tie.
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
I an not DOS I am USCIS, I would go in a heart beat, Trade with me, if you know how or can make it happen. I am a retired Army Sergeant Major, I understand commitment and sacrifice. I would rather be there in DCUs than here in a tie.
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
P in U.S.A. writes:
"I tell them that most FSOs are not wimps and weenies."
Thanks for the left handed compliments. I for one am glad that many FSOs are standing to this administration. So tired of the people who are turning this country into a dictatorship. What, how are the media such as New York Time and Washington Post question the motives of this administration? Bomb them! How dare corporations not cooperate in spying on Americans? Unpatriotic? Pulling the troops out of a pointless war? You are not supporting the troops!
John, this pathetic letter is no better than a North Korean official praising the wonderfulness of Kim Jong Il and disparaging the dissenters who are the true Americans questioning the government.
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
"I tell them that most FSOs are not wimps and weenies."
Thanks for the left handed compliments. I for one am glad that many FSOs are standing to this administration. So tired of the people who are turning this country into a dictatorship. What, how are the media such as New York Time and Washington Post question the motives of this administration? Bomb them! How dare corporations not cooperate in spying on Americans? Unpatriotic? Pulling the troops out of a pointless war? You are not supporting the troops!
John, this pathetic letter is no better than a North Korean official praising the wonderfulness of Kim Jong Il and disparaging the dissenters who are the true Americans questioning the government.
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
Bill in Kansas writes:
Thank you for your service and your dedication. I am amazed at some of the responses to your blog from some of your DOS colleagues. For example, Bob in El Salvador states "We have also not "agreed to this type of work," as you assert. In fact, when I joined the Foreign Service in 1995, no post was even close to the 70% hardship and danger differential now assigned by the State Department to Iraq. Moreover, at that time, FSOs were not serving in active combat zones anywhere in the world." Well, Bob, I can't say how excited I am to have "visionaries" such as you in DOS. If you thought the world would always look like in did in 1995, you are certainly in the wrong type of work. Reread your oath - I think you maybe agreed to it a little too quickly.
And Joe in Alaska writes "Our nation's reputation is in tatters; and the last think State should be doing is sending seasoned career diplomats into zones where their skills are thrown away. Diplomats are not soldiers. To compare them to Marines is absurd. Our marines and soldiers have done their duty, but does any serious thinker believe that a bunch of guys in desert cammo will solve our problems in the middle east and elsewhere? ...." So, diplomats skills are thrown away in Iraq? I guess you'd need to explain those so-called "skills" then. If you are talking about martini sipping, socialite partying, then you'd be right - those skills probably won't help in Iraq. But a true, skilled diplomat is a key in Iraq, especially during this phase of the operation. DOS should be the supported agency right now, and DOD playing a supporting role. But w/ "brave" FSO's like Joe and Bob, not likely to happen. And Joe, you obviously don't hold the soldiers carrying the overwhelming bulk of the load right now in high regard, so if their skills aren't helping solve the problems, how does DOS help if they are there and assisting w/ the problems.
Someone else mentioned that in this type of situation, the embassy would be evacuated in most situations. Well, if you are in a destabilizing country that the U.S. military is not going to, then you're probably right. But our military is there, fighting hard to try and develop/maintain security. What is needed is a robust DOS presence to work the diplomatic, economic, and informational elements of power for this effort. The security role should be in support of the DOS role. But if DOS isn't there to do their piece, then what good will security do? And sorry DOS folks, sometimes you just can't get the cozy, huge differential, safe post. Sometimes, you actually have to earn that differential and be in a place where security isn't perfect.
Thanks for your service John.....hope there are more out there like you, and more like Bob and Joe who are retiring very soon.
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
Thank you for your service and your dedication. I am amazed at some of the responses to your blog from some of your DOS colleagues. For example, Bob in El Salvador states "We have also not "agreed to this type of work," as you assert. In fact, when I joined the Foreign Service in 1995, no post was even close to the 70% hardship and danger differential now assigned by the State Department to Iraq. Moreover, at that time, FSOs were not serving in active combat zones anywhere in the world." Well, Bob, I can't say how excited I am to have "visionaries" such as you in DOS. If you thought the world would always look like in did in 1995, you are certainly in the wrong type of work. Reread your oath - I think you maybe agreed to it a little too quickly.
And Joe in Alaska writes "Our nation's reputation is in tatters; and the last think State should be doing is sending seasoned career diplomats into zones where their skills are thrown away. Diplomats are not soldiers. To compare them to Marines is absurd. Our marines and soldiers have done their duty, but does any serious thinker believe that a bunch of guys in desert cammo will solve our problems in the middle east and elsewhere? ...." So, diplomats skills are thrown away in Iraq? I guess you'd need to explain those so-called "skills" then. If you are talking about martini sipping, socialite partying, then you'd be right - those skills probably won't help in Iraq. But a true, skilled diplomat is a key in Iraq, especially during this phase of the operation. DOS should be the supported agency right now, and DOD playing a supporting role. But w/ "brave" FSO's like Joe and Bob, not likely to happen. And Joe, you obviously don't hold the soldiers carrying the overwhelming bulk of the load right now in high regard, so if their skills aren't helping solve the problems, how does DOS help if they are there and assisting w/ the problems.
Someone else mentioned that in this type of situation, the embassy would be evacuated in most situations. Well, if you are in a destabilizing country that the U.S. military is not going to, then you're probably right. But our military is there, fighting hard to try and develop/maintain security. What is needed is a robust DOS presence to work the diplomatic, economic, and informational elements of power for this effort. The security role should be in support of the DOS role. But if DOS isn't there to do their piece, then what good will security do? And sorry DOS folks, sometimes you just can't get the cozy, huge differential, safe post. Sometimes, you actually have to earn that differential and be in a place where security isn't perfect.
Thanks for your service John.....hope there are more out there like you, and more like Bob and Joe who are retiring very soon.
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
JR in Iowa writes:
To the FSO's who are incessantly complaining about having to work in an active war zone as unarmed individuals:
I am a civilian contractor who's done 2 deployments in Afghanistan (17 months) and will probably do a 3rd. I, along with the approximately 4000 other contractors in my company in Afghanistan, do not carry weapons, and moreover, we work hand in glove with the U.S. military on a daily basis. Therefore, the twin excuses of being unarmed and working with the military are so meaningless as to be laughable. (In fact, some of our projects are funded by the Department of State so your department is paying us to do it. Are you above similar treatment?)
I would add that as FSO's (at least in Baghdad) you will get deluxe accommodations in apartment style living. If you feel those accommodations are too "pedestrian", you can always come on over to Afghanistan where we civilian contractors live in plywood huts (we are each allotted a 7' x 7' square area) with blankets slung between our beds for walls, 10 people per hut. Moreover, it’s refreshing to wake up in the winter time and see your breathe...while you're still in bed.
It’s time for you to do some serious soul searching and decide if you're physically and mentally suited to performing this very important mission. If not, kindly step aside in favor of someone who is. These wars will not be won from the comfort of Starbucks.
PS - Mr. Matel, you are the man!
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
To the FSO's who are incessantly complaining about having to work in an active war zone as unarmed individuals:
I am a civilian contractor who's done 2 deployments in Afghanistan (17 months) and will probably do a 3rd. I, along with the approximately 4000 other contractors in my company in Afghanistan, do not carry weapons, and moreover, we work hand in glove with the U.S. military on a daily basis. Therefore, the twin excuses of being unarmed and working with the military are so meaningless as to be laughable. (In fact, some of our projects are funded by the Department of State so your department is paying us to do it. Are you above similar treatment?)
I would add that as FSO's (at least in Baghdad) you will get deluxe accommodations in apartment style living. If you feel those accommodations are too "pedestrian", you can always come on over to Afghanistan where we civilian contractors live in plywood huts (we are each allotted a 7' x 7' square area) with blankets slung between our beds for walls, 10 people per hut. Moreover, it’s refreshing to wake up in the winter time and see your breathe...while you're still in bed.
It’s time for you to do some serious soul searching and decide if you're physically and mentally suited to performing this very important mission. If not, kindly step aside in favor of someone who is. These wars will not be won from the comfort of Starbucks.
PS - Mr. Matel, you are the man!
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
Dipnote Blogger John Matel writes:
@ Jim in Texas -- I am profiting from the experience, but I think the world is more complicated than your analysis indicates.
@ Laura -- Actually I do not like it here. I will be glad when my time is done, but it is something we should do. I am not trained for war. I do not carry a gun and I am not a very good shot in any case. As a diplomat, my job is to create connections among people and work for the arts of peace. We diplomats here are being asked to do OUR jobs. The Marines have their own. What we share is the duty to do what we have agreed to do.
@ Rosamon in California -- Our job is to help build the structures of peace. We cannot always do that work best only where peace and order are already firmly established. It is still dangerous here, but not nearly as bad as you may have been led to believe.
@ Nick in Illinois -- Unfortunately, General Order 1 prevents the Marines from drinking beer and it would be bad manners to drink in front of them. Besides, they do not have any on the base. However, it is the Marine birthday on November 10. Every Marine gets a beer, and so do I, so I will take you up on the beer thing. Thanks.
@ Mary in Texas -- Thanks. Thousands of FSOs have served in Afghanistan, Iraq and other dangerous places. I wrote this post to indicate that MOST of us are not like those guys at the town hall. You notice, BTW, that they were all in Washington. What does that say?
@ Albert in Oklahoma -- Exactly. Although here in Anbar I tuck my Brooks Brothers shirts into Cabella�s pants.
@ William in Dominican -- Yes. I hear from my friends that it was not a general problem.
@ Bob in El Salvador -- The Marines take care of me. There is not much fighting left here anyway. I cannot speak for everywhere in the country, but the war in Anbar is mostly finished. Besides, with all the precautions, I think we are probably safer here than in some other posts around the world.
I also do not like forced assignments. I made my choice based on my circumstances that might not apply to all. However, I think we should all be available in theory at least and we really have not call to complain.
@ Joe in Alaska -- I have experienced "actual diplomacy" for 23 years. I am a member of the career Foreign Service and was promoted to the senior FS for work I did before Iraq. I will not cast any more pearls before you.
@ Marine Mom in Virginia -- Maybe rode with your son in Anbar. The young men and women in the Marines are great. You are justifiably proud.
@ Don in Illinois -- Most of us are okay. The asses just bray the loudest. Thanks.
@ TRO -- Thanks. Please see above.
@ Jonathan in Texas -- I am proud to be FS and proud of most of my colleagues most of the time. We do serve our country and most of us are willing to serve in hard or difficult places. Please see what I wrote to Don above.
@ David in Japan -- Thanks.
@ James in South Korea -- Please see above to Jonathan. The Marines, BTW, have done an excellent job here in Anbar. They have big boots to fill, but we of the soft hands also have jobs to do.
@ Deborah in U.S.A. -- Thanks.
@ Vince in Illinois -- Most FSOs are dedicated and sincere. Diplomacy is a hard thing to get right. When you get it right, everybody just thinks it was luck and when you get it wrong they think you are an idiot.
@ Gari in New York -- Thanks.
@ Marie in California -- Please see above.
@ Steve in Nebraska -- Thanks.
@ Ken in Alaska -- We do have pretty sweet jobs most of the time. Even Iraq is not that bad compared with some of the jobs some people do every day. I do feel lucky.
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
@ Jim in Texas -- I am profiting from the experience, but I think the world is more complicated than your analysis indicates.
@ Laura -- Actually I do not like it here. I will be glad when my time is done, but it is something we should do. I am not trained for war. I do not carry a gun and I am not a very good shot in any case. As a diplomat, my job is to create connections among people and work for the arts of peace. We diplomats here are being asked to do OUR jobs. The Marines have their own. What we share is the duty to do what we have agreed to do.
@ Rosamon in California -- Our job is to help build the structures of peace. We cannot always do that work best only where peace and order are already firmly established. It is still dangerous here, but not nearly as bad as you may have been led to believe.
@ Nick in Illinois -- Unfortunately, General Order 1 prevents the Marines from drinking beer and it would be bad manners to drink in front of them. Besides, they do not have any on the base. However, it is the Marine birthday on November 10. Every Marine gets a beer, and so do I, so I will take you up on the beer thing. Thanks.
@ Mary in Texas -- Thanks. Thousands of FSOs have served in Afghanistan, Iraq and other dangerous places. I wrote this post to indicate that MOST of us are not like those guys at the town hall. You notice, BTW, that they were all in Washington. What does that say?
@ Albert in Oklahoma -- Exactly. Although here in Anbar I tuck my Brooks Brothers shirts into Cabella�s pants.
@ William in Dominican -- Yes. I hear from my friends that it was not a general problem.
@ Bob in El Salvador -- The Marines take care of me. There is not much fighting left here anyway. I cannot speak for everywhere in the country, but the war in Anbar is mostly finished. Besides, with all the precautions, I think we are probably safer here than in some other posts around the world.
I also do not like forced assignments. I made my choice based on my circumstances that might not apply to all. However, I think we should all be available in theory at least and we really have not call to complain.
@ Joe in Alaska -- I have experienced "actual diplomacy" for 23 years. I am a member of the career Foreign Service and was promoted to the senior FS for work I did before Iraq. I will not cast any more pearls before you.
@ Marine Mom in Virginia -- Maybe rode with your son in Anbar. The young men and women in the Marines are great. You are justifiably proud.
@ Don in Illinois -- Most of us are okay. The asses just bray the loudest. Thanks.
@ TRO -- Thanks. Please see above.
@ Jonathan in Texas -- I am proud to be FS and proud of most of my colleagues most of the time. We do serve our country and most of us are willing to serve in hard or difficult places. Please see what I wrote to Don above.
@ David in Japan -- Thanks.
@ James in South Korea -- Please see above to Jonathan. The Marines, BTW, have done an excellent job here in Anbar. They have big boots to fill, but we of the soft hands also have jobs to do.
@ Deborah in U.S.A. -- Thanks.
@ Vince in Illinois -- Most FSOs are dedicated and sincere. Diplomacy is a hard thing to get right. When you get it right, everybody just thinks it was luck and when you get it wrong they think you are an idiot.
@ Gari in New York -- Thanks.
@ Marie in California -- Please see above.
@ Steve in Nebraska -- Thanks.
@ Ken in Alaska -- We do have pretty sweet jobs most of the time. Even Iraq is not that bad compared with some of the jobs some people do every day. I do feel lucky.
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
Nick in Kansas writes:
As a retired FSO who served in Vietnam, I understand how many of my colleagues (and their families) fear the danger of a war zone. FSOs, unlike the military, can always opt out of an assignment by resigning or retiring if they do not wish to go into a hazardous assignment. That right cannot be abridged. But, still the Foreign Service has needs to fill in places like Iraq. Even if 60% to 80% of FSOs who are involuntarily ordered to Iraq in the end suck in their gut and fear and go, perhaps there is a different way to approach this type of problems over the longer term.
Specifically, I would propose that State set up a new, small, voluntary cadre of officers within the Foreign Service who sign 4 to 5 year contracts, like their military counterparts, to serve in any post to which they are assigned without the possibility of resigning or retiring. Out of our roughly 5000 active duty FSOs, perhaps we would only need a group of 500 who could be sent anytime, anywhere to serve their country in hazardous conditions and without the ability of resigning or retiring. To encourage the formation of such a voluntary corps, incentives would have to be offered. E.g., salaries might be pegged 10% above the norm, an extra week of annual leave might be given, life insurance might be enhanced, some preference on promotions might be considered, etc.
Whether or not such a corps were developed, State should probably also look at family support mechanisms that the military uses to give its personnel assurance that their families will have a circle of friends and the aid they need if the officer or soldier is badly wounded or killed in doing his/her duty. I.e. some FSOs may be less willing to take a hazardous job because they are concerned that their families may not be able to cope well if tragedy strikes.
In the end, I would tell my fellow FSOs that life in hazardous duty posts is less risky in fact than it seems from afar. It is probably safer in the Green Zone than in most of New York City or much of Washington, DC.
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
As a retired FSO who served in Vietnam, I understand how many of my colleagues (and their families) fear the danger of a war zone. FSOs, unlike the military, can always opt out of an assignment by resigning or retiring if they do not wish to go into a hazardous assignment. That right cannot be abridged. But, still the Foreign Service has needs to fill in places like Iraq. Even if 60% to 80% of FSOs who are involuntarily ordered to Iraq in the end suck in their gut and fear and go, perhaps there is a different way to approach this type of problems over the longer term.
Specifically, I would propose that State set up a new, small, voluntary cadre of officers within the Foreign Service who sign 4 to 5 year contracts, like their military counterparts, to serve in any post to which they are assigned without the possibility of resigning or retiring. Out of our roughly 5000 active duty FSOs, perhaps we would only need a group of 500 who could be sent anytime, anywhere to serve their country in hazardous conditions and without the ability of resigning or retiring. To encourage the formation of such a voluntary corps, incentives would have to be offered. E.g., salaries might be pegged 10% above the norm, an extra week of annual leave might be given, life insurance might be enhanced, some preference on promotions might be considered, etc.
Whether or not such a corps were developed, State should probably also look at family support mechanisms that the military uses to give its personnel assurance that their families will have a circle of friends and the aid they need if the officer or soldier is badly wounded or killed in doing his/her duty. I.e. some FSOs may be less willing to take a hazardous job because they are concerned that their families may not be able to cope well if tragedy strikes.
In the end, I would tell my fellow FSOs that life in hazardous duty posts is less risky in fact than it seems from afar. It is probably safer in the Green Zone than in most of New York City or much of Washington, DC.
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
William in Texas writes:
Poor, poor FSOs. Are their martinis half empty? Not chilled to satisfaction? What an impressive lot.
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
Poor, poor FSOs. Are their martinis half empty? Not chilled to satisfaction? What an impressive lot.
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
Mark in Colorado writes:
Thank you for your efforts, your honor, and your integrity. We do hope more will follow in your footsteps, not so much just in location, but in the spirit of patriotism. Lead well sir, and Bless you.
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
Thank you for your efforts, your honor, and your integrity. We do hope more will follow in your footsteps, not so much just in location, but in the spirit of patriotism. Lead well sir, and Bless you.
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
John in Kuwait writes:
Problem: Unarmed diplomats being sent to Iraq.
Solution: For those diplomats who want to exercise their right to keep and bear arms, issue Glock 26s, ammunition, and two spare magazines and train the diplomats in the proper use and safety procedures for firearms.
Has anyone raised the issue with the Ambassador that his policy against arming diplomats makes said diplomats easy pickings for insurgents?
Look at the incident of the kidnapping of the soldiers in Karbala earlier this year. On January 20, 2007, a group of gunmen attacked the Karbala Provincial Joint Coordination Center in Karbala, captured four American soldiers, and subsequently killed them. Diplomats could be next.
I think the Ambassador is violating FSO's Constitutional rights, to wit, the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution, partially quoting here, which says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Why do certain people feel it is perfectly ok for the government (in this case an Ambassador) to ban weapons, but if the Ambassador told you to vote a certain way, the media would be all over them for violating your freedom of conscience?
I'm willing to go, but it is my right to carry a firearm, especially in a war zone. FSO's had guns in Viet Nam, in Beirut in the 1980s, etc. But now they can't have them in Iraq? To me that is the outrage which is going unreported.
Stay safe and best wishes.
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
Problem: Unarmed diplomats being sent to Iraq.
Solution: For those diplomats who want to exercise their right to keep and bear arms, issue Glock 26s, ammunition, and two spare magazines and train the diplomats in the proper use and safety procedures for firearms.
Has anyone raised the issue with the Ambassador that his policy against arming diplomats makes said diplomats easy pickings for insurgents?
Look at the incident of the kidnapping of the soldiers in Karbala earlier this year. On January 20, 2007, a group of gunmen attacked the Karbala Provincial Joint Coordination Center in Karbala, captured four American soldiers, and subsequently killed them. Diplomats could be next.
I think the Ambassador is violating FSO's Constitutional rights, to wit, the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution, partially quoting here, which says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Why do certain people feel it is perfectly ok for the government (in this case an Ambassador) to ban weapons, but if the Ambassador told you to vote a certain way, the media would be all over them for violating your freedom of conscience?
I'm willing to go, but it is my right to carry a firearm, especially in a war zone. FSO's had guns in Viet Nam, in Beirut in the 1980s, etc. But now they can't have them in Iraq? To me that is the outrage which is going unreported.
Stay safe and best wishes.
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
JP in California writes:
Since I'm too busy working, all I can do is echo the sentiments of the military mom and others who view you "FSO's" as pathetic wimps.
I can't imagine signing up for your job and not knowing there might be some risk involved. I'm trying to think of the right word for what I think of you turd-bureaucrats, who are, unknowingly, proving once again how pathetic [most] civil servants are. Disgust.
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
Since I'm too busy working, all I can do is echo the sentiments of the military mom and others who view you "FSO's" as pathetic wimps.
I can't imagine signing up for your job and not knowing there might be some risk involved. I'm trying to think of the right word for what I think of you turd-bureaucrats, who are, unknowingly, proving once again how pathetic [most] civil servants are. Disgust.
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
Jim in Texas writes:
An artificial war created for the profit of a few well connected individuals can only be partially disguised. That primal fact tends to surface on a regular basis. This is one of them.
Dipnote Blogger John Matel writes:
@ Jim in Texas -- I am profiting from the experience, but I think the world is more complicated than your analysis indicates.
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
An artificial war created for the profit of a few well connected individuals can only be partially disguised. That primal fact tends to surface on a regular basis. This is one of them.
Dipnote Blogger John Matel writes:
@ Jim in Texas -- I am profiting from the experience, but I think the world is more complicated than your analysis indicates.
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
LP in Tennessee writes:
What's to ponder?
When you give your 'service' to County, especially the State, I would think there are no limits to the time, place, setting or assignment and duty task.
I joined the USAF, ended up pulling targets on an Army base in OK then entered "Inter Services" started by Green, Boykin and Wilson. It wasn't a question of anything beyond my 'Joining the Military Service in Good Faith'. I was in Nam before the next few months were out, but I came in under the USAF.
You go where you’re needed, when you’re needed and how you’re needed. You’re working for the Greater Good of the State and Country, not a family business -- and you chose to do so. I believe it’s in the contract regardless.
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
What's to ponder?
When you give your 'service' to County, especially the State, I would think there are no limits to the time, place, setting or assignment and duty task.
I joined the USAF, ended up pulling targets on an Army base in OK then entered "Inter Services" started by Green, Boykin and Wilson. It wasn't a question of anything beyond my 'Joining the Military Service in Good Faith'. I was in Nam before the next few months were out, but I came in under the USAF.
You go where you’re needed, when you’re needed and how you’re needed. You’re working for the Greater Good of the State and Country, not a family business -- and you chose to do so. I believe it’s in the contract regardless.
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
Laura writes:
Your comparison of a FSO and a Marine is silly.
A Marine (or any soldier in the armed services) is trained for a war setting and war situation. It's bad enough that President Bush invaded and is now occupying Iraq (the wrong country in the war on terror) without forcing FSOs to serve there. What's next, forcing U.S. civilians to live there too?
If you don't mind being there, that's fine for you. Objection to serving there says nothing about you and your choice. Don't take it as a personal insult, this is not an issue about you!
Dipnote Blogger John Matel writes:
@ Laura -- Actually I do not like it here. I will be glad when my time is done, but it is something we should do. I am not trained for war. I do not carry a gun and I am not a very good shot in any case. As a diplomat, my job is to create connections among people and work for the arts of peace. We diplomats here are being asked to do our jobs. The Marines have their own. What we share is the duty to do what we have agreed to do.
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
Your comparison of a FSO and a Marine is silly.
A Marine (or any soldier in the armed services) is trained for a war setting and war situation. It's bad enough that President Bush invaded and is now occupying Iraq (the wrong country in the war on terror) without forcing FSOs to serve there. What's next, forcing U.S. civilians to live there too?
If you don't mind being there, that's fine for you. Objection to serving there says nothing about you and your choice. Don't take it as a personal insult, this is not an issue about you!
Dipnote Blogger John Matel writes:
@ Laura -- Actually I do not like it here. I will be glad when my time is done, but it is something we should do. I am not trained for war. I do not carry a gun and I am not a very good shot in any case. As a diplomat, my job is to create connections among people and work for the arts of peace. We diplomats here are being asked to do our jobs. The Marines have their own. What we share is the duty to do what we have agreed to do.
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
Dan in Washington, DC writes:
@ Neil in North Carolina -- I work in the State Department as a Civil Service employee. The oath of office that you provided is one that all U.S. government employees take, including Civil Service employees, Foreign Service employees, etc., and not an oath that is only for U.S. Foreign Service Officers.
In regards to U.S. Foreign Service Officers being obligated to serve worldwide wherever the Department assigns them, this requirement for members of the U.S. Foreign Service is based on U.S. law, specifically 22 U.S.C. 3901(a)(4), which was included as part of the U.S. Government's Foreign Service Act of 1980 as passed by Congress and signed into law by the President.
In regards to worldwide availability, the Foreign Service Act of 1980 in part states the following (see Sec. 101.1 (a) (4) for specific worldwide availability requirement):
"SEC. 101.1 FINDINGS AND OBJECTIVES.--
(a) The Congress finds that-- (1) a career foreign service, characterized by excellence and professionalism, is essential in the national interest to assist the President and the Secretary of State in conducting the foreign affairs of the United States; (2) the scope and complexity of the foreign affairs of the Nation have heightened the need for a professional foreign service that will serve the foreign affairs interests of the United States in an integrated fashion and that can provide a resource of qualified personnel for the President, the Secretary of State, and the agencies concerned with foreign affairs; (3) the Foreign Service of the United States, established under the Act of May 24, 1924 (commonly known as the Rogers Act) and continued by the Foreign Service Act of 1946, must be preserved, strengthened, and improved in order to carry out its mission effectively in response to the complex challenges of modern diplomacy and international relations; (4) the members of the Foreign Service should be representative of the American people, aware of the principles and history of the United States and informed of current concerns and trends in American life, knowledge-able of the affairs, cultures, and languages of other countries, and available to serve in assignments throughout the world; and (5) the Foreign Service should be operated on the basis of merit principles."
Additional guidance regarding this requirement for US Foreign Service employees to be subject to worldwide assignment for U.S. Foreign Service employees is found at the following web address as part of the Department's "Foreign Affairs Handbook," (or "FAH") which is one of the policy / regulation documents for managing the US Department of State: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/89586.pdf
The section of the State Department regulations found in the Foreign Affairs Handbook addressing worldwide availability for U.S. Foreign Service employees reads as follows:
"3 FAH-1 H-2423.1 Worldwide Availability
(CT:POH-115; 08-31-2005)
(State only)
(Applies to Foreign Services employees)
a. 22 U.S.C. 3901(a)(4) is the legal basis for this subsection; these provisions of are amplified in 3 FAM 2424.
b. We may assign you to any position, on a worldwide basis, as we determine necessary in the best interests of US foreign policy and the efficient functioning of the Service.
c. The decision of an assignment panel (3 FAH-1 H-2425.3), or of the DG on review or appeal (3 FAH-1 H2425.3-1) is binding upon you. If you refuse to accept such a decision, you are subject to disciplinary action, including separation from the service per 3 FAM 4300."
So that's the worldwide availability requirement for U.S. Foreign Service employees in black and white (or white and black, given Dipnote's unique display format! :-) )
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
@ Neil in North Carolina -- I work in the State Department as a Civil Service employee. The oath of office that you provided is one that all U.S. government employees take, including Civil Service employees, Foreign Service employees, etc., and not an oath that is only for U.S. Foreign Service Officers.
In regards to U.S. Foreign Service Officers being obligated to serve worldwide wherever the Department assigns them, this requirement for members of the U.S. Foreign Service is based on U.S. law, specifically 22 U.S.C. 3901(a)(4), which was included as part of the U.S. Government's Foreign Service Act of 1980 as passed by Congress and signed into law by the President.
In regards to worldwide availability, the Foreign Service Act of 1980 in part states the following (see Sec. 101.1 (a) (4) for specific worldwide availability requirement):
"SEC. 101.1 FINDINGS AND OBJECTIVES.--
(a) The Congress finds that-- (1) a career foreign service, characterized by excellence and professionalism, is essential in the national interest to assist the President and the Secretary of State in conducting the foreign affairs of the United States; (2) the scope and complexity of the foreign affairs of the Nation have heightened the need for a professional foreign service that will serve the foreign affairs interests of the United States in an integrated fashion and that can provide a resource of qualified personnel for the President, the Secretary of State, and the agencies concerned with foreign affairs; (3) the Foreign Service of the United States, established under the Act of May 24, 1924 (commonly known as the Rogers Act) and continued by the Foreign Service Act of 1946, must be preserved, strengthened, and improved in order to carry out its mission effectively in response to the complex challenges of modern diplomacy and international relations; (4) the members of the Foreign Service should be representative of the American people, aware of the principles and history of the United States and informed of current concerns and trends in American life, knowledge-able of the affairs, cultures, and languages of other countries, and available to serve in assignments throughout the world; and (5) the Foreign Service should be operated on the basis of merit principles."
Additional guidance regarding this requirement for US Foreign Service employees to be subject to worldwide assignment for U.S. Foreign Service employees is found at the following web address as part of the Department's "Foreign Affairs Handbook," (or "FAH") which is one of the policy / regulation documents for managing the US Department of State: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/89586.pdf
The section of the State Department regulations found in the Foreign Affairs Handbook addressing worldwide availability for U.S. Foreign Service employees reads as follows:
"3 FAH-1 H-2423.1 Worldwide Availability
(CT:POH-115; 08-31-2005)
(State only)
(Applies to Foreign Services employees)
a. 22 U.S.C. 3901(a)(4) is the legal basis for this subsection; these provisions of are amplified in 3 FAM 2424.
b. We may assign you to any position, on a worldwide basis, as we determine necessary in the best interests of US foreign policy and the efficient functioning of the Service.
c. The decision of an assignment panel (3 FAH-1 H-2425.3), or of the DG on review or appeal (3 FAH-1 H2425.3-1) is binding upon you. If you refuse to accept such a decision, you are subject to disciplinary action, including separation from the service per 3 FAM 4300."
So that's the worldwide availability requirement for U.S. Foreign Service employees in black and white (or white and black, given Dipnote's unique display format! :-) )
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
Rosamon in Californa writes:
The State Department pulls their diplomats out of dangerous zone. It should not be sending them into peril.
Dipnote Blogger John Matel writes:
@ Rosamon in California -- Our job is to help build the structures of peace. We cannot always do that work best only where peace and order are already firmly established. It is still dangerous here, but not nearly as bad as you may have been led to believe.
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
The State Department pulls their diplomats out of dangerous zone. It should not be sending them into peril.
Dipnote Blogger John Matel writes:
@ Rosamon in California -- Our job is to help build the structures of peace. We cannot always do that work best only where peace and order are already firmly established. It is still dangerous here, but not nearly as bad as you may have been led to believe.
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
Christopher in Iraq writes:
Thanks for your letter, John. Quite frankly, I love being here.
As to my whiny colleagues - are you guys diplomats, or are you chickens?
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
Thanks for your letter, John. Quite frankly, I love being here.
As to my whiny colleagues - are you guys diplomats, or are you chickens?
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
Nick in Illinois writes:
Mr. Matel, you deserve a beer or three.
When you sign up for the FSO, you might have to go to places that you don't want to, but that's the life you chose. You're serving this country the same way our fine fighting men and women are.
Watch your six and come home safely.
Dipnote Blogger John Matel writes:
@ Nick in Illinois -- Unfortunately, General Order 1 prevents the Marines from drinking beer and it would be bad manners to drink in front of them. Besides, they do not have any on the base. However, it is the Marine birthday on November 10. Every Marine gets a beer, and so do I, so I will take you up on the beer thing. Thanks.
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
Mr. Matel, you deserve a beer or three.
When you sign up for the FSO, you might have to go to places that you don't want to, but that's the life you chose. You're serving this country the same way our fine fighting men and women are.
Watch your six and come home safely.
Dipnote Blogger John Matel writes:
@ Nick in Illinois -- Unfortunately, General Order 1 prevents the Marines from drinking beer and it would be bad manners to drink in front of them. Besides, they do not have any on the base. However, it is the Marine birthday on November 10. Every Marine gets a beer, and so do I, so I will take you up on the beer thing. Thanks.
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
Mary in Texas writes:
Mr. Matel, from the daughter of a retired U.S. Marine mustang Officer, the wife of a former U.S. Marine, and a former U.S. Marine myself (yes, I'm all 3) - thank you!!
Many of my 'growing up' years were spent in the DC area, in the 70's - and "careerists" of the State Department were there in inordinate numbers. Not an especially impressive bunch.
The comments of Joe in Alaska notwithstanding, I'm pretty sure I speak for my Dad, my Husband & myself that "we" would be honored to serve with you & 'cover your 6'.
Semper Fi'
---
Dipnote Blogger John Matel writes:
@ Mary in Texas -- Thanks. Thousands of FSOs have served in Afghanistan, Iraq and other dangerous places. I wrote this post to indicate that most of us are not like those guys at the town hall. You notice, BTW, that they were all in Washington. What does that say?
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
Mr. Matel, from the daughter of a retired U.S. Marine mustang Officer, the wife of a former U.S. Marine, and a former U.S. Marine myself (yes, I'm all 3) - thank you!!
Many of my 'growing up' years were spent in the DC area, in the 70's - and "careerists" of the State Department were there in inordinate numbers. Not an especially impressive bunch.
The comments of Joe in Alaska notwithstanding, I'm pretty sure I speak for my Dad, my Husband & myself that "we" would be honored to serve with you & 'cover your 6'.
Semper Fi'
---
Dipnote Blogger John Matel writes:
@ Mary in Texas -- Thanks. Thousands of FSOs have served in Afghanistan, Iraq and other dangerous places. I wrote this post to indicate that most of us are not like those guys at the town hall. You notice, BTW, that they were all in Washington. What does that say?
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
Paul in Virginia writes:
@ Bob in El Salvador -- I am an FSO and when I signed up my understanding was that I go where I am ordered, regardless of my desire to be there or the situation on the ground. Even if we question our personal security, even if it is a war zone, even if we question the work. If an officer does not want an assignment I don't want that person working beside me, and if someone wants to take themselves out of the picture, that is fine by me. I want someone I can trust, someone willing to work, by my side in a tough situation. I have nothing but admiration for the men and women in our Armed Forces. We FSOs may not carry guns but we have a role to play in advancing the goals of the U.S., sometimes in very difficult situations. I really don't think we can pick and choose the type of situation we would like to be in. Iraq is tough, yes, but we have a job to do and if we are told to go we should go.
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
@ Bob in El Salvador -- I am an FSO and when I signed up my understanding was that I go where I am ordered, regardless of my desire to be there or the situation on the ground. Even if we question our personal security, even if it is a war zone, even if we question the work. If an officer does not want an assignment I don't want that person working beside me, and if someone wants to take themselves out of the picture, that is fine by me. I want someone I can trust, someone willing to work, by my side in a tough situation. I have nothing but admiration for the men and women in our Armed Forces. We FSOs may not carry guns but we have a role to play in advancing the goals of the U.S., sometimes in very difficult situations. I really don't think we can pick and choose the type of situation we would like to be in. Iraq is tough, yes, but we have a job to do and if we are told to go we should go.
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
Albert in Oklahoma writes:
@ Joe in Alaska -- Joe in Alaska wrote: "...does any serious thinker believe that a bunch of guys in desert cammo will solve our problems in the middle east and elsewhere?"
Exactly. That's why we need the Brooks Brothers set to get onboard for the big win instead of wanking like a bunch of spoiled teenagers. Particularly at this critical juncture when the situation in Iraq is starting to turn and your country needs you now more than ever.
Sadly, too many at DoS have decided their hatred for the current administration trumps the oath they swore.
---
Dipnote Blogger John Matel writes:
@ Albert in Oklahoma -- Exactly. Although here in Anbar I tuck my Brooks Brothers shirts into Cabella's pants.
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
@ Joe in Alaska -- Joe in Alaska wrote: "...does any serious thinker believe that a bunch of guys in desert cammo will solve our problems in the middle east and elsewhere?"
Exactly. That's why we need the Brooks Brothers set to get onboard for the big win instead of wanking like a bunch of spoiled teenagers. Particularly at this critical juncture when the situation in Iraq is starting to turn and your country needs you now more than ever.
Sadly, too many at DoS have decided their hatred for the current administration trumps the oath they swore.
---
Dipnote Blogger John Matel writes:
@ Albert in Oklahoma -- Exactly. Although here in Anbar I tuck my Brooks Brothers shirts into Cabella's pants.
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
William in Dominican Republic writes:
This situation is really getting blown out of proportion, as anyone who has seen the tape of the infamous town hall meeting knows. The majority of the meeting was very calm, and only degenerated when one person -- one officer who is about to retire -- gave his very strongly held viewpoints. The media has run with this story, somehow suggesting that there is a revolt going on at State. It's just not true. Readers should also be aware that thousands of FS Officers have already served in Iraq. Thousands more are currently serving at hardship posts throughout the world. Let's keep things in perspective.
---
Dipnote Bloger John Matel writes:
@ William in Dominican Republic -- Yes. I hear from my friends that it was not a general problem.
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
This situation is really getting blown out of proportion, as anyone who has seen the tape of the infamous town hall meeting knows. The majority of the meeting was very calm, and only degenerated when one person -- one officer who is about to retire -- gave his very strongly held viewpoints. The media has run with this story, somehow suggesting that there is a revolt going on at State. It's just not true. Readers should also be aware that thousands of FS Officers have already served in Iraq. Thousands more are currently serving at hardship posts throughout the world. Let's keep things in perspective.
---
Dipnote Bloger John Matel writes:
@ William in Dominican Republic -- Yes. I hear from my friends that it was not a general problem.
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
Walt in California writes:
John,
Thank you for your loyal dedication to your country. And thank you to the whiners that complained. We now know how stressful going to such a demanding post can be for some individuals. I hope that the leadership at State can help these folks transition to a position that suits their level of motivation.
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
John,
Thank you for your loyal dedication to your country. And thank you to the whiners that complained. We now know how stressful going to such a demanding post can be for some individuals. I hope that the leadership at State can help these folks transition to a position that suits their level of motivation.
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
Bob in El Salvador writes:
John,
You make some very good points but I have to disagree with your suggestion that our agreement to worldwide availability means "anywhere regardless of the risk and circumstances", and that "we all agreed to this type of work."
First, by agreeing to worldwide availability, none of us has agreed to simply turn over the question of our personal security to the best judgment of the State Department in all cases. If the State Department were to order unarmed Foreign Service Officers to serve in a combat zone with no protection whatsoever, "for the needs of the service," would you say you had agreed to that kind of "worldwide availability"? Of course not. There are reasonable risks and ureasonable risks for unarmed civilians. Some of the Foreign Service Officers who disagree with forced assignments to Iraq are simply saying the risks in Iraq are not reasonable for unarmed civilians. And those FSOs are not willing to leave it up to current occupants of the Secretary of State's or Director General's offices to decide what risk is reasonable for them in every imaginable case, including active combat zones like Iraq.
We have also not "agreed to this type of work," as you assert. In fact, when I joined the Foreign Service in 1995, no post was even close to the 70% hardship and danger differential now assigned by the State Department to Iraq. Moreover, at that time, FSOs were not serving in active combat zones anywhere in the world. It can hardly be said, then, that I agreed to this type of work when I joined, given that nothing even close to "this type of work" existed then.
Finally, I disagree with FSOs who say we should be expected to Iraq if they agree with the work the U.S. government is doing there. We cannot pick and choose our assignments based upon our personal agreement with US policies, in Iraq or anywhere else in the world. But the State Department, the President, the Pentagon, you name it, should not seek to compel Foreign Service Officers, unarmed civilians, to serve side-by-side with the military in an active combat zone. The risk to Foreign Service Officers is unreasonable in those cases, and that is why in any other country in the world besides Iraq, our embassy would be on draw-down, operating on a skeletal staff, if at all.
---
Dipnote Blogger John Matel writes:
@ Bob in El Salvador -- The Marines take care of me. There is not much fighting left here anyway. I cannot speak for everywhere in the country, but the war in Anbar is mostly finished. Besides, with all the precautions, I think we are probably safer here than in some other posts around the world.
I also do not like forced assignments. I made my choice based on my circumstances that might not apply to all. However, I think we should all be available in theory at least and we really have not call to complain.
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
John,
You make some very good points but I have to disagree with your suggestion that our agreement to worldwide availability means "anywhere regardless of the risk and circumstances", and that "we all agreed to this type of work."
First, by agreeing to worldwide availability, none of us has agreed to simply turn over the question of our personal security to the best judgment of the State Department in all cases. If the State Department were to order unarmed Foreign Service Officers to serve in a combat zone with no protection whatsoever, "for the needs of the service," would you say you had agreed to that kind of "worldwide availability"? Of course not. There are reasonable risks and ureasonable risks for unarmed civilians. Some of the Foreign Service Officers who disagree with forced assignments to Iraq are simply saying the risks in Iraq are not reasonable for unarmed civilians. And those FSOs are not willing to leave it up to current occupants of the Secretary of State's or Director General's offices to decide what risk is reasonable for them in every imaginable case, including active combat zones like Iraq.
We have also not "agreed to this type of work," as you assert. In fact, when I joined the Foreign Service in 1995, no post was even close to the 70% hardship and danger differential now assigned by the State Department to Iraq. Moreover, at that time, FSOs were not serving in active combat zones anywhere in the world. It can hardly be said, then, that I agreed to this type of work when I joined, given that nothing even close to "this type of work" existed then.
Finally, I disagree with FSOs who say we should be expected to Iraq if they agree with the work the U.S. government is doing there. We cannot pick and choose our assignments based upon our personal agreement with US policies, in Iraq or anywhere else in the world. But the State Department, the President, the Pentagon, you name it, should not seek to compel Foreign Service Officers, unarmed civilians, to serve side-by-side with the military in an active combat zone. The risk to Foreign Service Officers is unreasonable in those cases, and that is why in any other country in the world besides Iraq, our embassy would be on draw-down, operating on a skeletal staff, if at all.
---
Dipnote Blogger John Matel writes:
@ Bob in El Salvador -- The Marines take care of me. There is not much fighting left here anyway. I cannot speak for everywhere in the country, but the war in Anbar is mostly finished. Besides, with all the precautions, I think we are probably safer here than in some other posts around the world.
I also do not like forced assignments. I made my choice based on my circumstances that might not apply to all. However, I think we should all be available in theory at least and we really have not call to complain.
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
Joe in Alaska writes:
Wow...this reads like a section cut by Graham Greene out of "The Quiet American", only with worse grammar.
During the 2+ decades I spent in west and southern Africa, I spent a lot of time around FSOs: I would not have described their lifestyle as 'sweet'. Sending FSOs into war zones in non-diplomatic roles (such as the role Matel holds) is just plain stupid.
Our nation's reputation is in tatters; and the last think State should be doing is sending seasoned career diplomats into zones where their skills are thrown away.
Diplomats are -not-soldiers. To compare them to Marines is absurd. Our marines and soldiers have done their duty, but does any serious thinker believe that a bunch of guys in desert cammo will solve our problems in the middle east and elsewhere?
The desperation shown in Matel's propaganda message is obvious. Forcing U.S. diplomats to serve in Iraq is counterproductive and underscores what we all know: that the mess we made in Iraq is unsolvable without diplomatically engaging Iraq's neighbors.
While Kool-Aid drinkers like Matel might shudder at the thought of actually engaging in diplomacy, here's a constructive proposal: reopen our embassy in Iran and beef up our presence in Syria. Finally, a mission our career diplomats can accomplish.
---
Dipnote Blogger John Matel writes:
@ Joe in Alaska -- I have experienced "actual diplomacy" for 23 years. I am a member of the career Foreign Service and was promoted to the senior FS for work I did before Iraq. I will not cast any more pearls before you.
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007
Wow...this reads like a section cut by Graham Greene out of "The Quiet American", only with worse grammar.
During the 2+ decades I spent in west and southern Africa, I spent a lot of time around FSOs: I would not have described their lifestyle as 'sweet'. Sending FSOs into war zones in non-diplomatic roles (such as the role Matel holds) is just plain stupid.
Our nation's reputation is in tatters; and the last think State should be doing is sending seasoned career diplomats into zones where their skills are thrown away.
Diplomats are -not-soldiers. To compare them to Marines is absurd. Our marines and soldiers have done their duty, but does any serious thinker believe that a bunch of guys in desert cammo will solve our problems in the middle east and elsewhere?
The desperation shown in Matel's propaganda message is obvious. Forcing U.S. diplomats to serve in Iraq is counterproductive and underscores what we all know: that the mess we made in Iraq is unsolvable without diplomatically engaging Iraq's neighbors.
While Kool-Aid drinkers like Matel might shudder at the thought of actually engaging in diplomacy, here's a constructive proposal: reopen our embassy in Iran and beef up our presence in Syria. Finally, a mission our career diplomats can accomplish.
---
Dipnote Blogger John Matel writes:
@ Joe in Alaska -- I have experienced "actual diplomacy" for 23 years. I am a member of the career Foreign Service and was promoted to the senior FS for work I did before Iraq. I will not cast any more pearls before you.
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007