Rice Attempts To Quell Diplomatic Ire

Secretary Of State Answers Diplomats' Revolt Over Forced Iraq Postings

(AP)  Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is trying to quell a revolt among U.S. diplomats angry over attempts to force foreign service officers to work in Iraq under threat of dismissal.

Rice plans to send a cable to all U.S. embassies and missions abroad explaining the decision to begin the largest diplomatic call-up since Vietnam, following a contentious "town hall meeting" at the department where diplomats raised deep concern about being ordered to work in Iraq, the State Department said.

"The secretary is going to send out a cable worldwide to people talking about this decision as well as encouraging people to serve in Iraq," spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters, saying the message would be distributed Thursday.

He stressed the cable was not a "direct response" to Wednesday's unusually hostile session, but that "it speaks to some of the concerns that were aired in that town hall meeting."

Rice, who did not attend the meeting, was also making clear in the cable that foreign service officers have an obligation to uphold the oaths they took to carry out the policies of the government and be available to serve anywhere in the world, McCormack said.

Despite the resistance to mandatory Iraq duty displayed at the meeting, McCormack noted that since 2002, more than 1,500 U.S. diplomats have served at the Baghdad embassy and in Provincial Reconstruction Teams in outlying areas and that 94 percent of the positions there are currently filled.

He took pains to point out that the diplomatic corps is not shirking its responsibilities and noted that since the call-up to fill 48 vacant Iraq posts was announced last Friday, 15 diplomats have volunteered to work there. He acknowledged, however, that that represents only 0.1 percent of the roughly 11,500-member foreign service.

Rice's cable was drafted after the town hall meeting and in the wake of widespread news reports highlighting the anger and frustration of many diplomats who attended and applauded loudly when one of their colleagues likened a forced tour in Iraq to a "potential death sentence."

Several hundred foreign service officers participated in the gathering at which several diplomats, backed by the vocal support of their colleagues there, vehemently complained about the prospect of so-called "directed assignments" to Iraq to make up for a lack of volunteers.

"Incoming is coming in every day, rockets are hitting the Green Zone," said Jack Croddy, a senior foreign service office, referring to the highly fortified area of Baghdad where the embassy is located.

"It's one thing if someone believes in what's going on over there and volunteers, but it's another thing to send someone over there on a forced assignment," Croddy said. "I'm sorry, but basically that's a potential death sentence and you know it. ... Who will raise our children if we are dead or seriously wounded?"

His remarks were met with loud applause.

No U.S. diplomats have been killed in Iraq since the war began in March 2003. But the union that represents them counts three foreign service personnel, not necessarily officers, as having been killed in Iraq during that time.

The union says the security situation is precarious and the completion of a new, heavily secured embassy compound and living quarters has been beset by logistical and construction problems.

Despite the concerns, the director general of the foreign service, Harry Thomas, told those at the meeting that the decision would not be rescinded.

"This is an obligation we must do," Thomas said. "We cannot shrink from that duty."

Other diplomats said they were troubled that they might be sent to Iraq without the proper training or might suffer mental or physical injuries for which the State Department might not be able to provide medical care.

Under the new order, 200 to 300 diplomats have been identified as "prime candidates" to fill 48 vacancies that will open next year at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad and in Iraqi provinces. Those notified have 10 days to accept or reject the position. If not enough say yes, some will be ordered to go.

Only those with compelling reasons, such as a medical condition or extreme personal hardship, will be exempt from disciplinary action. Diplomats forced into service in Iraq will receive the same extra hardship pay, vacation time and choice of future assignments as those who have volunteered.

In 1969, an entire class of entry-level diplomats was sent to Vietnam. On a smaller scale, diplomats were required to work at various embassies in West Africa in the 1970s and 1980s.

[tbweb]

grow up--this is an opined based forum--we post what we like, and we--unlike you--try to tolerate the most inane posts, responding or ignoring, but recognizing for better or worse--they all have a right to be here. Don''''t like it? You could always skip it, or go outside, or and get some exercise.

Posted by toldyouso21 at 11:54 AM : Nov 03, 2007,,,

LOL!! Are we having fun yet? LOL!!

[toldyouso21]

To those of you on the right and left focus on the article above NOT all of your BS conclusions about who or what got us where we are today. If you have a solution, state it, otherwise be quiet and support the troops and the cause.

Posted by cavalryCPT at 10:31 AM : Nov 02, 2007


Why in the world should anyone on a blog EVER offer a solution? If they want to --fine--but blogs are opinions not think tanks or brainstorming sessions for the President''s major fvck ups. Do you work for some group that is supposed to come up with solutions? Are you trolling the blogs hoping an avg citizen will give you the answers to trot back with?

grow up--this is an opined based forum--we post what we like, and we--unlike you--try to tolerate the most inane posts, responding or ignoring, but recognizing for better or worse--they all have a right to be here. Don''t like it? You could always skip it, or go outside, or and get some exercise.

[toldyouso21]

What exactly are diplomats supposed to do in Iraq? Diplomats smooth things over and negotiate...so let''s see--

1. We start a war in Iraq based on lies and bomb, kill, torture, imprison and mistreat Iraqis

2. We tell them we will leave if they vote the way Americans vote. We don''t , we stay

3. Iraq falls apart, with internal murders, bombings, fighting, homicides, the infrastructure is shot--no sanitation, very little electricity, kids are orphaned, families destroyed

Iraqis can point to the present horror and know the meddling of America opened the door to it.

so now...what exactly does Rice think representatives from the invaders can do to smooth things over? It appears giving Iraqis 600.00 for killing each of their babies, or 1200.00 for destroying their homes, and the ink pens, cookies and candy----- were not enough. It also appears that with over 80% wanting us gone (in polls taken from 2003 to 2006) staying is not popular either--so what are they supposed to do--smile and speak pigeon arabic , while blackwater points a machine gun at them?

[rickstas]

Another page in this sad saga.

[gunnerv1]

It''s just like being in the military, only better pay and you don''t get your hands dirty. "You knew the job was dangerous when you took it". Suck it up and get packing.

[rick_vt]

The Foreign Service employees agree to the chance that assignments may not be their choice but dictated by need when they signed their employment agreements on day of hire. Go or resign is not an unacceptable stance. Saying that, I think that Condi should take up residence there as a top leader setting an example. Ha... like that will happen.

[ioweign]

First, serving in Iraq is not a death sentence. It is the state departments job. I don''''t recall anyone being "drafted" into the state department. If these "diplomats" that work for the state department don''''t want to got do their job then fire them. It''''s that simple. To those of you on the right and left focus on the article above NOT all of your BS conclusions about who or what got us where we are today. If you have a solution, state it, otherwise be quiet and support the troops and the cause.

Posted by cavalryCPT at 10:31 AM : Nov 02, 2007

#########

It is not the State Department''s job to deploy personnel into a civil war in a foreign country.

Why is Crocker traveling around trying to get other countries to have ambassadors in civil war torn Iraq ?

Even other countries are wise enough to know better !!

We just closed the embassy in Azerbaijan because of terrorist "threats".

When a civil war breaks out in a country, we normally make sure to protect our diplomatic personnel by getting them out - not putting more in harm''s way.

Article right here on cbsnews.com below:

Embassies Suspend Operations In Azerbaijan
U.S., British Diplomatic Missions Were Targets Of Thwarted Terrorist Attack

The U.S. and British embassies suspended operations Monday in Baku, where the government said it thwarted a radical Islamic group''s plot to conduct a "large-scale horrifying terror attack" against diplomatic missions and government buildings.

[cavalrycpt]

First, serving in Iraq is not a death sentence. It is the state departments job. I don''t recall anyone being "drafted" into the state department. If these "diplomats" that work for the state department don''t want to got do their job then fire them. It''s that simple. To those of you on the right and left focus on the article above NOT all of your BS conclusions about who or what got us where we are today. If you have a solution, state it, otherwise be quiet and support the troops and the cause.

[watcher269-2009]

Condi is like Bush - You just can''t take them seriously anymore!

[watcher269-2009]

And the Draft Starts!