marylou Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 My childhood dream was to be in the Foreign Service, so it's with some interest that I'm watching this story. Condoleeza Rice has said that if enough volunteers can't be rounded up, there will be mandatory tours into Iraq for some FS employees. They will either have to go or quit the FS, which I assume would cause them to forfeit generous benefits. FS workers are comparing a tour to Iraq with "being given a death sentence" and say normally embassies are closed down in war zones (which is true). The Green Zone is regularly breached, and we've seen people like diplomatic staff and journalists given no immunity from the horrors of the war. Personally I think it is wrong to force FS employees to work in a war zone, and if it were me, I'd probably resign before I'd go. What do you think? Should they have to go? Would you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashw_justin Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 normally embassies are closed down in war zonesFunny what throwing the word "war" around has allowed this administration to do. Too bad nobody else gets to use the magic word. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crux Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 They should resign. As should every commissioned military officer called upon to lead into perpetuity the unlawful occupation of Iraq. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marylou Posted November 2, 2007 Author Share Posted November 2, 2007 ITA Crux. I see it as a moral imperative. It's a completely illegal occupation, and history will not be kind to this country for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underworld Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 "Should they have to go" they don't have to go... should i have to pay my morgage? no, i don't have to - but if i choose not to, i'll forfeit the benefit of living at my house. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marylou Posted November 2, 2007 Author Share Posted November 2, 2007 What if your boss told you you were being transferred to Baghdad? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 What if your boss told you you were being transferred to Baghdad? Huh? WTF? What if my boss said I was being transferred to Boston, New York, Texas, Kansas, whatever - if I didn't want to go, I'd quit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ericb Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 What if your boss told you you were being transferred to Baghdad? Marylou...I have two friends in the foreign service....they can rank their preferences, and generally it seems they get more say in their destination as their seniority increases, but ultimately the government decides (similar to the military) They agree to this arrangement as part of their employment. One just got married last weekend and is taking his new bride on his next assignment...The Congo - not his first choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marylou Posted November 2, 2007 Author Share Posted November 2, 2007 Being assigned to work in the middle of a war zone where the military can't protect you from danger is not the same thing as being assigned to The Congo though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ericb Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 agreed....and he can quit at anytime. FWIW, he's already done his tour of dip. security in Iraq, and he'd go back in a hearbeat if he wasn't married...he was making 2x his salary while he was there. Based on the seniority based assignments, my guess is that the majority of those assigned (that could resign at their choosing) would not be walking away from a very long career. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hayduke Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 They should go. They should have to go. They have made a commitment to the Country. They have made a commitment to diplomacy. It is their duty. FSOs are strong, intelligent and very patriotic. I can't believe they are having trouble getting volunteers. It is not comparable to having a private sector job and being transferred to another city. Moving around the globe is their life. BTW, I was married to an FSO and have some idea of what the life is like and who they are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underworld Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 Being assigned to work in the middle of a war zone where the military can't protect you from danger is not the same thing as being assigned to The Congo though. the similarity is striking tho.... go - and there are consequences don't go - and there are consequences it's up to the worker to weigh the consequenses and the risk/benefits of each. give them the credit to make that decision and don't try and think for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joblo7 Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 same advice to all mil personel: GET A JOB...! GET OFF WELFARE...! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snugtop Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 My husband is on the registry so I think this is good news! Opens up more spots for the newbies (luckily they only want experienced diplomats) And I'd be happy to go to the Congo with my husband. Tell that dude he's lucky he got such an interesting post! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foraker Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 FSOs are strong, intelligent and very patriotic. That may indeed be the reason why they're having problems getting volunteers, eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marylou Posted November 2, 2007 Author Share Posted November 2, 2007 My childhood dream was to be in the Foreign Service, so it's with some interest that I'm watching this story. It's not enough just to dream. One must also be q-u-a-l-i-f-i-e-d. There's no doubt in my mind that if I had gone east to go to the college of my choice, it would not have been out of my reach. I chose a different course, and therefore live a different life than that. I did regret that at points in my life, but don't any longer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheJiggler Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 They should go. They should have to go. They have made a commitment to the Country. They have made a commitment to diplomacy. It is their duty. FSOs are strong, intelligent and very patriotic. I can't believe they are having trouble getting volunteers. It is not comparable to having a private sector job and being transferred to another city. Moving around the globe is their life. BTW, I was married to an FSO and have some idea of what the life is like and who they are. This is a little simplistic. FSO do make a commitment for "worldwide availability". I made that commitment about a month ago and I expect to be hired on sometime in the next 18 months. FSO do go all over the world, with frequently little choice in where they go. They are NOT armed, nor should they be. They rely on other for their protection. They are not trained in military tactics nor much in the way of security. FSO do get injured and die. We know this. It is rare though, and not an expectation. Historically speaking when it becomes too dangerous to do the work of the embassy, they evacuate. The scene of helicopters landing on the roof of the Embassy in S. Vietnam comes to mind. This isn’t unprecedented. Diplomats were directed to Vietnam, though in that case they were given significant training and we IIRC in the South, which was arguably safer than the green zone, let alone the PRT in the field. I do not think that many FSOs when they signed up would have thought they would be going to an active war zone. Most of the people being directed to Iraq will have been in the service before 9/11, most before the embassy bombings in Africa. Since then the service and the nature of the embassies has drastically changed. I doubt few if any could have imagined they would be serving in the middle of a war zone in a $1,000,000,000 bunker with daily incoming mortar rounds and living in a trailer. There is no VA for FSOs. There is no plan to deal with FSOs with PTSD. It should be noted that something like 1300 FSO have served in Iraq to date. All were volunteers. Most tell you that it is a dismal place to work, as no real diplomatic work gets done. It’s simply too dangerous for the FSOs to do the job they are trained for. So, do I think people should be directed? Ultimately I think it is a mistake to do this. Few will be fired, but it is bad for moral. Most people think it’s a waste of their time. Most people think their skill would better serve the US in other posts doing real diplomatic work. Most people seemed resigned to going if called. I'd probably go, and if I decided not to I know the consequences, I won't be locked up in jail for quitting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 Like almost everybody else has said, they don't have to go, they can quit. I think this will lead to people quitting and make people very disenchanted with their employer and be looking to find a better job. The qualified people will find other work and leave. Brain drain from the FSO. The more stupid shit like this happens the more it makes me believe the formerly unbelievable that the Bush administration actually is trying to kill the government by loading with incompetency. I believe radical conservatives think this is a reasonable option, of fucking up the government so much, that it will collapse under it's own weight. Viola! No more big government. As long as you're independently wealthy or have a survival bunker in Colorado/Wyoming/Idaho you can ride out the chaos. Case in point look at this guy that Bush is nominating to head the VA. This guy was in on the ground floor of all the crap that has built up with regard to the VA, and now he's getting promoted to fix the problem? It really makes you wonder what the hell is going on. Either Bush is purposefully trying to destroy competency in government or he's just picking a fight with Democrats (playing politics with the health and well-being of our veterans). It's just unbelievable how crazy this is getting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 It's difficult to find talented people who want to sign on to a sinking ship. In addition, the gene pool of people who subscribe to this administration's failed policies is not impressive. The only motivations I can think of for anyone accepting a position in this tragic joke-of-an-administration at this point would be a)serving the party now for future personal gain later and b) accepting a high profile position that would normally be way beyond the candidate's competency level as an upward career move for future personal gain later, or c) bored with retirement/need something to do. I suppose 'mitigating the damage from the inside' might be one, but Bush effectively filters for that. It should come no surprise that Bush appointees and nominees are bottom of the barrel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 All the presidential candidates should be sent to the front lines with no special treatment. All presidents should understand what "war" really is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 All the presidential candidates should be sent to the front lines with no special treatment. All presidents should understand what "war" really is. good idea. send Hillary and Bush now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 State Department employees have been killed in Iraq, but McCormack could not say how many. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dechristo Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 Like almost everybody else has said, they don't have to go, they can quit. I think this will lead to people quitting and make people very disenchanted with their employer and be looking to find a better job. The qualified people will find other work and leave. Brain drain from the FSO. Except a point was made earlier that those with seniority may well be able to skirt this assignment. If this is the case, then it is likely that only those that are green will be required to take a position in the "Green Zone". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 It may well be a way of getting rid of their shittiest employees. Send 'em to Iraq. Maybe they've decided Iraq is lost anyway so why send anyone competent? I don't think it's going to help in recruiting new people. The problem here, is basically making the State Dept. a shitty place to work. It's harder to hire qualified people when the job you are offering sucks. The qualified people can get jobs elsewhere. The shitty employer is going to be stuck with the retards and closet cases. You get what you pay for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.