WASHINGTON, April 15, 2008
U.S. Diplomats Warned Of Forced Iraq Duty
Amid Staffing Crisis, State Department Says They May Have To Serve In War Zone Next Year
-
-
Photo
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, March 30, 2008. (AP Photo/Heidi Levine, Pool)
-
Photo
A portion of the new U.S. embassy under construction in Baghdad is seen from across the Tigris river in this May 19, 2007 photo. (AP Photo)
-
-
Interactive
Battle For Iraq
The government, the insurgency, key players, background and photos.
A similar call-up notice last year caused an uproar among foreign service officers, some of whom objected to compulsory work in a war zone, although in the end the State Department found enough volunteers to fill the jobs.
Now, the State Department anticipates another staffing crisis.
"We face a growing challenge of supply and demand in the 2009 staffing cycle," the cable said, noting that more than 20 percent of the nearly 12,000 foreign service officers have already worked in the two major hardship posts - Iraq and Afghanistan - and a growing number have done tours in both countries.
As a result, the unclassified April 8 cable says, "the prime candidate exercise will be repeated" next year, meaning the State Department will begin identifying U.S. diplomats qualified to serve in Iraq and who could be forced to work there if they don't volunteer.
CBS News State Department reporter Charles Wolfson reports that a senior official who has followed the process by which slots are filled at the embassies in Baghdad and Kabul said "it's going to be painful, this next personnel cycle." He explained that he meant that finding people to go to these posts will "stress the system to an even greater degree than last year because of a limited pool of officers" and the fact that many have already served there.
The prime candidate list will be comprised of diplomats who have special abilities that are needed in Iraq, such as Arabic language skills, deep Mideast knowledge or training in specific areas of reconstruction.
"We must assign to Iraq those employees whose skills are most needed, and those employees should know that they personally are needed," Foreign Service Director General Harry Thomas said in the cable sent to all diplomatic missions.
The cable describes how the department will fill upcoming vacancies at hardship posts like those Iraq and Afghanistan - although it doesn't plan to force any Afghanistan assignments. Diplomats will "bid," or apply, for positions in the war zones that will be advertised in May. After that, the department expects to begin identifying prime candidates for about 300 Iraq jobs that come open next summer, Thomas wrote.
The cable said more details will be announced next month, but identification of prime candidates is the first step in implementing so-called "directed assignments." That means ordering diplomats to work in certain locations under threat of dismissal unless they have a compelling reason, such as a health condition, that would prevent them from going.
Last year, after prime candidates were identified for 48 Iraq jobs that come open this summer, enough qualified volunteers came forward to avoid what would have been the largest diplomatic call-up since the Vietnam War - but not before the uproar over the prospect of forced tours made national headlines.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Tuesday that she had been personally offended by the critical comments of some diplomats who questioned the ethics of sending people against their will to a war zone. One diplomat, during an October session held at the State Department to explain the policy to employees, called the forced assignments a "potential death sentence" to loud applause.
"I was deeply offended myself, and deeply sorry that these people who had self-selected into this town hall went out of their way, to my view, cast a very bad light on the foreign service," Rice told a House panel.
Rice said the comments were isolated and prompted a visceral response by the rest of the diplomatic corps, including those serving in dangerous posts outside Iraq and Afghanistan. "I will tell you, the blogs were lit up in the Department of State by people who were offended ... who were absolutely offended by those comments," she said.
She added that she had not needed to "direct assign" diplomats to Iraq last year, but she stressed that she reserved the right to do so in the future.
The State Department is hoping it can fill all of next year's Iraq vacancies with volunteers as it did in 2008.
"We hope to accomplish the same in 2009," the cable says. "A willing, qualified volunteer is always preferable to an employee sent involuntarily."
The union that represents U.S. diplomats shares that view.
"Unless there is some huge upward change in the number of positions, I think it's quite possible to staff the Baghdad embassy with volunteers," said John Naland, president of the American Foreign Service Association. "The foreign service has done it for the past five years and I believe the foreign service will do it again."
Yet, there are serious concerns that the pool of those willing to go is dwindling.
Some diplomats have privately expressed unease about volunteering for Iraq duty amid deep uncertainty over how the administration following President Bush will deal with Iraq, and how that might affect security or change Washington's focus on the country.
While presumptive Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain has vowed to stay the course, both Democratic hopefuls, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, have made clear they oppose the war and have pledged to reduce the number of American troops there.
Such a move could have an impact on State Department operations and security, some diplomats fear.
Naland said he was not aware of such concerns. He added that security worries could be allayed by the fact that the State Department on Monday finally took possession of the new, heavily fortified U.S. Embassy in Baghdad after months of delay caused by constructions problems.
Diplomats are expected to begin moving into the facility at the end of next month after enduring several spates of major insurgent rocket attacks in their less-well-protected offices and living quarters in the Green Zone. Four Americans - two soldiers and two civilians - have been killed by such fire in recent weeks.
At least three foreign service personnel - two diplomatic security agents and one political officer - have been killed in Iraq since the war began in March 2003.
© MMVIII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Video and Galleries from Iraq After Saddam
-
Photos
Iraq Photos: July 6?July 12
-
Photos
Iraq Photos: June 29-July 5
-
Photos
Iraq Photos: June 22 ? June 28
- Latest in Iraq After Saddam
- Bombs Claim 50 in Iraq
- Biden Meets with Key U.S. Leaders in Iraq
- Senate Investigates Blackwater Subsidiary
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 85 CommentsWell, Condi - you do the first two-year tour.
May as well paint a huge bull''s eye right in the center of the compound.
*********************************************
LOL. I guess the state department hasn''t heard that GWB won''t be president next year, and no one is going to Bagdad. We will leave, there will be an all out civil war, and they will come to some sort of agreement.
Even Obama realizes he is in a box.
How about this idea? Since they are new jobs and no current diplomatic worker wants them, how about hiring some willing Americans to do them? Maybe some of these loudmouth supporters of the war will be willing to work those jobs. Ha!
Posted by cofield425 at 09:39 PM : Apr 15, 2008
Hmmm, smart wimps. There will probably be job openings so apply cofield425...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by cofield425 at 09:39 PM : Apr 15, 2008
+ report abuse
You know this how?? Oh let me guess! You''re a swastika Hugging supporter of the LIAR in Chief?? Sieg Heil Bush!!
Maybe if McBushcain, Shrub, Darth, Kindasleezy, and some other Neocon Bigshots, went over and Goose-Stepped down the Avenue in full Neocon Nazi Regalia, the "little people" in the State Dept. would rethink their positions.....
The irony is just TOO rich. Bush/Cheney POINTEDLY ignored the State Dept in decisions regarding Iraq before and after the war. (because the State Dept is apparently full of people that KNOW something about the world...and you KNOW how exasperating such people can be when you''re on a crusade!)
And NOW those people are going to be sent to suffer the consequences for decision made by the people who ignored their advice.
Folks: this is how neoconservatism works: give decisionmaking power to people you like, who WONT be held accountable for their bad decisions (Bremer got the Medal of Freedom!), and make people you DONT LIKE PAY for the bad decisions you made by ignoring them. THATS why I think modern conservatives are actually ANARCHISTS.
---
More blame shifting - what''s new.
State employes are not reflecting poorly on themselves by voicing concerns, but rather, the stupidity of the administration instead.
Truth of the matter is that the economic and political progress of Iraq since the surge has been ZILCH!
Posted by Winstrv at 11:40 PM
There is a huge difference between the expectations of what a soldier and a diplomatic worker are expected to do.
Why don''t some of these loudmouth war supporters apply for these diplomatic jobs? That would solve the problem.
I think many state dept employees just dont like taking orders from an imbecile (Bush), who never tried to draw on their thousands of YEARS of collective experience about the Middle East before he cluster-fvcked the nation into this black hole. I don''t blame them, but apparently you do. We don''t ALL live our lives to take orders, ya know. Some of us got a hard earned education for the PRIDE of knowing that that made us worthy of being consulted in our area of expertise. Having a partisan demogogue like Bush ignore their capabilities IN A TIME OF WAR, of all things, must be a bitterness beyond belief. They''re hanging ON, hoping for a change in leadership. Much like the rest of us. Bush/Cheney has been a nightmare from which we can only hope to awaken.
The diplomats themselves are fully aware of the lack of competence of this administration and don''t want to be penalized because of it.
It''s this argument that dissuades me from the argument offered by other posters that---yes, they agreed to serve, so they should do so! Normally, I''d agree with that argument. But the caveat is, they agreed to serve under administrations that are competent---this one isn''t. Consequently, their reluctance to do so. If I were in their shoes, I''d probably feel the same way!
Why don''t they advertise these jobs during the Hannity or Limbaugh shows? I''m sure they''d get zero volunteers. They talk the walk, but don''t walk the talk. These hypocrites would complain that embassy workers were "wimps".
What? Didn''t Bush staff the State Department with loyal stay the course Republicons? They should be chomping at the bit to serve in Iraq. It''s going so well over there isn''t it?
lol!
Posted by LolaEspanola at 01:13 AM : Apr 16, 2008
When violence broke out in Bosnia and Kosovo, the State Department closed the embassies and pulled the State Department employees. Why not the same for Iraq?
Soldiers sign up to go to war zones. Diplomats sign up to prevent soldiers [and diplomats] from having to go to war zones.
Lola, these are the people who get the education on the Middle East that, properly consulted, could have kept us out of Iraq altogether. Bush, in a display of pure Republican partisan hatred for educated people, refused to consult them (and in case you didn''t notice, sacked their chief, Colin Powell). Now, Bush''s clone Condi is telling these same people to go into harms way, a place Bush and Condi refuse to go.
I''m with them. Ya wanna start a war? Fight it yourself. Don''t ask the rest of us to fight it for you. That''s just a form of Republican predation.
My guess is, its the kind you practice yourself.
The liberal media is a different story. No less than THREE of the major liberal television networks are owned by two of the six major energy companys who are preparing to build "26" nuclear power plants across the country meaning hundreds of billions in guaranteed profits under the CHENEY ENERGY BILL. Clinton adamantly opposed it, and even McCain couldn''t stomach it enought to vote for it. Meanwhile back at the rance Obama slapped dems in the face and voted for it. What is the significance you may ask?
GE, and Westinghouse, two of the six benifactors, own CBS, NBC, and MSNBC who have shamelessly supported Obama from the beginning. They often sound like a frat boy/girls gone wild pep rally with MSNBC pundits claiming you can''t be american if you don''t cry when listening to Obama. How many millions is that worth I wonder? Heck, when you couple that with the Clinton hating conservative media who promoted Obama until he became the presumptive nominee, the phenominon isn''t so mysterious after all.
Now I wonder what it would take to get the media to report on the media and why does the government allows energy companies to own such a large share? Democracy is dead.
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 85 Comments