There are supposedly 48 slots open in the embassy of the United
States in Iraq for the next year and there aren't the volunteers in
the State Department to fill them. At what was billed as a "town
meeting" of approximately 300 concerned employees, one staff
member, a Mr. Jack Croddy, was quoted as saying this assignment was
"potentially a death sentence."
If one considers three State Department employees reportedly
killed in four and a half years adequate evidence of this "death
sentence," you would have to agree with Mr. Croddy. Of course, on a
statistical basis one might be equally endangered in many other
supposedly safe employments. But to clear up the three deaths: One
is said to be an embassy political officer (possibly a CIA case
officer on assignment) and the other two were State Department
security personnel. Heroes all!
The State Department job in Baghdad and throughout Iraq
certainly is different from many other postings around the world
and (in the best of times) it would be hoped they could have been
filled with willing volunteers rather than "draftees." This is not
a new problem. It existed in the late 1960's in Vietnam. It was
essentially an anti-war statement then and it's the same today.
Places like the Sudan, Lebanon, Colombia, Pakistan, and
Afghanistan are just a few of the key and difficult posts, in which
Foreign Service officers do not demand special treatment and hold
"town meetings" to whine about their possible assignment. But now
for being assigned to Iraq there is this demand that a decades old
regulation be rescinded that gives State the power to order its
FSO's anywhere.
Nobody appears willing to admit that the State Dept. has become
completely polarized politically to an extent that hasn't existed
since the Vietnam War. Furthermore, this polarization has been
played on by committed Democrats within the professional staff
aiming to enhance their possible future roles in a Democrat
presidency.
The State Department always has had political partisans among
its professional ranks. This is a fact of American government
service, but there has been an unwritten code of behavior when your
chosen political party is out of office. In theory, and most times
in practice, a staffer's domestic political leaning does not enter
into job performance. Every young FSO learns early on that
presidential administrations come and go, but the day-to-day work
of the various desks, bureaus, and departments must continue
unimpeded.
For the most part it's only when one reaches a higher rank that
political orientation comes to be a factor. In the meantime there
is always room for the judicious passing of information and opinion
to both the press and other government agencies. This has become an
unfortunate fact of life at all grade levels throughout the
government.
What is different today is the vehemence of the reaction of
FSO's to the "directed assignment" of personnel to Baghdad. The
concept that a Foreign Service officer is the leading echelon of
the civilian arm of the country's foreign political/economic
defense structure -- and as such holds a particular responsibility
to serve where ordered -- appears to have been set aside. More
important, it appears, is a desire to demand special dispensation
not available to the other members of the national security team or
indeed their own compatriots assigned elsewhere abroad other than
Iraq.
The standard operating procedure is that each FSO has several
choices for his/her next assignment. The problem is that the
regulations allow that in matters of manpower necessity individuals
can be assigned directly without their choice considered. Two
hundred fifty officers have received notices that they are eligible
for assignment to fill nearly fifty slots in the Iraq.
This was the action that brought about the now highly publicized
outcry and group protest characterized as a "town meeting." Speaker
Nancy Pelosi, with her usual ignorance of foreign political
operation and administration, immediately jumped into her
ever-present spotlight by condemning the State Department's
personnel plan as an example of the ineptness of the White House
policy in Iraq.
The media-exploited "revolt" was a manifestation of anti-war
sentiment played out within the Foreign Service ranks via the issue
of personnel assignment, but it wasn't simply that. There has been
antagonism toward Secretary Rice ever since she replaced her
perceived more dovish predecessor, Colin Powell. This supposed
division of view played well into the easily exploited concept of
"pro-Bush" versus "anti-war" alignment.
The State Department is clearly divided and morale is low
because of political divisions. However, there are scores of
Foreign Service employees serving in Iraq right now and it's sure
that they would prefer to be back in Foggy Bottom. It's time for
some fifty of their brothers and sisters to stand up to replace
them. If not, it would be a good idea for these slackers in
Washington to find other employment. They dishonor our diplomatic
service and the many who have gone before serving under
debilitating and dangerous circumstances.
topics:
Nancy Pelosi, Iraq, Pakistan
