State Dept is full of Elitist Selfish Jackasses

[Abu Jack]

[URL="http://www.reuters.com/news/video?videoId=69982"]

This story has me so pissed I can't see straight. I hope they fire the ones that refuse to go.

“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,” said Jack Croddy, a senior foreign service officer. “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?”

I don't know how he can take the taxpayers dollars as salary then spew this crap.

The State Department says three foreign service personnel — two diplomatic security agents and one political officer — have been killed in Iraq since the war began in March 2003.

Don't sound like a death sentence to me.

Anyway, Thomas Paine said it best over two hundred years ago.


I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death. Thomas Paine

These are times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Thomas Paine

Abu Jack

[Roguish Lawyer]

Next time you start a thread, please try to be more candid in the title. ;):D

[blacksmoke]

I eat at the Iraq embassy dfac as much as possible. From the interaction I have had with the civilins there I would say most of them are decent people. IMHO The ones who refuse ought to be fired.

[tom kelly]

Another case of a whiner "who is in the rear with the gear"I bet he complains everyday he drives to work about the traffic on the beltway.I hope Sect. Rice deployes Mr. Croddy to the sandbox ASAP...tom kelly

[AGaillard]

I wonder if Jack Croddy asks who raises the children of our fallen military as he undermines their mission from the comfort of Washington DC. If you do not believe in the policy leave. He swore an oath, which is meaningless to people like him, to serve anywhere. Fire them all and start over with good people.

[The Reaper]

Bear in mind that these career federal employees are making a lot more than an E-5 (or even an O-3), living pretty much a sheltered life in the Green Zone, with some fairly significant bonuses being offered as well.

They do have their own union though.:rolleyes:

TR

[Goshawk]

I've worked with DOS guys and gals out of embassies in South America and the majority of them are very good, intelligent patriots. Like the military they are required to go where they are needed (needs of the State Department as opposed to needs of the army). Like today's military they are an all volunteer force. They know all this before they get hired on. Unlike the military, if they don't like an assignment they can quit and go find another job somewhere else. If they are not willing to go serve where they are needed to defend and further the interests of the United States they should leave without throwing a temper tantrum like a four year old. They are an embarrassment to their collegues and the rest of the State Department. It doesn't matter if they agree with the war or not, that's irrelevant, they still are required to do their job as representatives of the United States and give 110% in the process. They should be honored that they are among the few that are qualified to go. It just goes to show that it's not our nation, not even our government at war, it's just the military at war. :mad:

[Warrior-Mentor]

I also had a visceral to this ... especially the "it's a virtual death sentence." crap.

3 dead...in how many YEARS? Would like to see how many State Department folks have died in that same period from car accidents or heart attacks.

"...and who will take car of our children."

You sorry piece of shit. Who takes care of military service members children? I would have loved to have been on that podium. "Is your life more important than that of our service members?" He couldn't answer it honestly (clearly he believes it is).

[60_Driver]

I've also worked with quite a few State people in LATAM. Most aren't bad for civvies.

I don't care for a general assumption I've noticed among them, that a guy in uniform is a retarded knuckle-dragger.

[82ndtrooper]

Have to admit that when heard this on the news my first thought was "what a bunch of little whiny pansies"

My impression was that of someone talking the talk and then when asked to toe the line, they simply take a powder or begin the pseodo jujitso of "how dare you question my patriotism" That backward walk, sometimes a run for cover under the guise of "I'm better than this, he's a neanderthal for trying to toe the line with me" This person does not toe the line, he avoids it at all costs and reverts to hoping that his colleagues or friends see him as "More mature"

Personally I enjoy the man that toes the line when asked. Puts forth his best effort and still kicks when down. I have much more respect for at least keeping ones dignity even if it means failing somewhat in the process.

Just my .02

[x-factor]

A couple facts to add to the argument:

- Since 2003, 1500 State department employees have volunteered to go to Iraq. In a department of only about 11,500 people already spread all over the world thats more than 1 in 10.

- 3 dead out of 1500 is 1:500. By comparison, (if my estimates are right) about 500,000 soldiers have been deployed to Iraq at one point or another since 2003 with about 4000 dead. Thats about 1:125. Not a death sentence in either case, but certainly (and unsurprisingly) more dangerous to be a soldier.

- The people at State Department are still very bitter over the way they percieve Powell was treated. Powell was tremendously popular at State for the soldierly way he "took care of his people." In a recent survey only 12% believed that Secretary Rice was looking out for them. This backlash has to do with more than just directed assignments to Iraq. It has to do with the overall intra-department relations between the political appointees at the top and the career service folks.

- If State employees seem more hesitant about going its not necessarily because they're cowards. They are not trained or prepared to face physical danger. Soldiers spend their entire professional existence being trained and equiped to operate in combat zones. State department folks receive almost no training at all. I'm not sure if FSOs in danger/war zones even carry a weapon. (I don't think they do, but one of you might know for sure.)

Furthermore, when a soldier goes over he goes as part of a cohesive unit. When a State guy goes over he goes over as an individual. They're entirely dependent on their security forces (esp Blackwater) who they've never met or worked with and which are at times suspect due to lack of numbers and many other issues discussed here.

How would you feel about going to Iraq if you were going over by yourself, with no weapon, and only rudimentary training and told "don't worry, the Blackwater guys will protect you"?

Point being, the State folks have some legitimate concerns in play here. Its not just State Department being soft, elitist, etc.

That said, my own opinion is that the guy quoted in the first post is pathetic. If you want to raise substantive issues about training or security shortfalls, that is your right and responsibility, but to stand up just to go on some petulant harangue of no substantive value to the mission is incredibly lame.

Tell me what you need to be able to go, don't just tell me you can't go.

[Guy]

x-factor:

Remember where you are posting! This site has qualified individuals who are more than capable: to travel the world alone!:cool:

Maybe the DoS should consider more veterans with certain skill-sets in their selection process?:munchin

Stay safe.

[x-factor]

Guy - My point exactly! :)

I think Iraq has been an real wake up call for State on what it means to practice diplomacy (especially the diplomatic component of COIN as talked about in the other thread) in semi-permissive and non-permissive environments. At the very least, I would think they'll plus up their protective service by hiring some of the more qualified guys back from the PMCs.

[GratefulCitizen]

x-factor:

Remember where you are posting! This site has qualified individuals who are more than capable: to travel the world alone!:cool:

Maybe the DoS should consider more veterans with certain skill-sets in their selection process?:munchin

Stay safe.

Duncan Hunter has a proposal along these lines.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58494

[Guy]

x-factor:

You don't learn how to practice diplomacy in "semi-permissive and non-permissive" environments; In college.;)

Stay safe.

[jatx]

The brightest, most patriotic people I know were all turned down for positions with DoS and CIA, apparently for driving too fast, offending their teachers and deflowering too many maidens. In their place, the unexceptional and/or socially retarded members of my grad school class were recruited.

If the DoS was a technology company, it would be the toner sales division of HP, not the the strategy group at Microsoft - with the terminally mediocre managers that implies.

[Guy]

I was slowly getting pissed about these DoS folks and decided to do some research....

"I ________, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

It's the same oath, in fact, other than stating of the name, that the Vice President takes.

Compare to the oath that an enlisted Soldier takes:

"I ________, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. "

FSOs have to pay taxes on their income while posted in a combat zone, we don't. But FSOs aren't subject to the UCMJ and can quit. We have to fulfill our contracts.

But it's the first half, "I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same," that's instructive. Its functionally the same oath.

One other difference; since March 2003, 2 State Department employees (James Mollen, Edward Seitz) have been killed in Iraq. Far from a "virtual death sentence," eh?


Stay safe.

[Warrior-Mentor]

New York Times
November 14, 2007

Send The State Department To War

By Max Boot

Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates -- THE State Department has announced that it will force 50 foreign service officers to go to Iraq, whether they want to or not. This is the biggest use of “directed assignments” since the Vietnam War, and it represents a long-overdue response to complaints that diplomats aren’t pulling their weight in Iraq and Afghanistan.

However welcome, this is only a baby step toward a larger objective: to reorient the department and the government as a whole for the global war on Islamic terrorism. Yes, this is a war, but it’s a very different war from conventional conflicts like World War II or the Civil War. It is, in essence, a global counterinsurgency, and few counterinsurgencies have ever been won by force alone.

While maintaining military power remains important, even more crucial goals are aiding moderate Muslims, countering enemy propaganda, promoting economic growth, flexing our political and diplomatic muscles to achieve vital objectives peacefully, gathering intelligence, promoting international cooperation, and building the rule of law in ungoverned lands.

The government developed expertise in many of these areas during the cold war, but those skills were lost as budgets were slashed and jobs eliminated during the “peace dividend” decade of the 1990s. Because civilian capacity has been so anemic, an undue burden has fallen on the military — something that soldiers understandably resent.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recognizes the problem and has tried to reorient the State Department. She has, among other steps, moved diplomats out of Western Europe and into the developing world, set up a “war room” where Arabic-speaking diplomats can address the Middle Eastern press, and fostered a clumsily named Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization to plan for nation-building assignments.

Such efforts, however, are unlikely to succeed because they run counter to centuries of State Department tradition that emphasizes liaison work with established governments rather than creating governments from scratch or communicating with foreign citizens over the heads of their leaders.

Modern management theory holds that small, tightly focused organizations are likely to be more effective than large conglomerates that try to do a million different things. If we apply that insight to the State Department, it would make sense to undo some ruinous consolidations that occurred after the cold war, when the United States Agency for International Development was placed within the State Department’s sphere of influence and the United States Information Agency was folded into the department outright. No wonder our capacities in nation-building and strategic communications have withered — their practitioners are second-class citizens behind traditional foreign service officers.

The information and development agencies should be made independent again, and their resources expanded. The Agency for International Development, in particular, has seen a precipitous decline in personnel. In the 1960s, it had 1,900 officers in South Vietnam alone. Today it has only 1,200 to cover the entire world, forcing it to rely mainly on contractors. If we expand its ranks, it could become our lead nation-building agency, sort of a global FEMA, marshaling the kind of resources that have been lacking in Iraq and Afghanistan.

To buttress the growing corps of government reconstruction experts, we should have civilian reservists on call who could be summoned by the Agency for International Development in an emergency like military reservists. They could bring expertise in municipal administration, sewage treatment, banking, electricity generation, and countless other disciplines needed to rebuild a war-torn country. President Bush endorsed this notion in his last State of the Union address, but too little has been done to turn it into reality.

One of the most important shortages we have faced in Iraq and Afghanistan is in experienced police officers who can train local counterparts. Much of the job has fallen on the military police, whose troops are too few in number, and on civilian contractors, who are of uneven quality. We need to fill the vacuum by creating a federal constabulary force — a uniformed counterpart to the F.B.I. that, like the Italian carabinieri, could be deployed abroad.

Its efforts could be supplemented by municipal policemen if we pass a law allowing the federal government to call up local police officers without loss of pay or seniority and to compensate hometown police departments for their absence. Along with these police officers, we need a deployable corps of lawyers, judges and prison guards who could set up functioning legal and penal systems abroad.

Even with increased participation from civilian branches of government, the armed forces will still have a major role to play in what President Bush calls the “Long War.” But not necessarily a kinetic role. If we can train and advise foreign militaries, they can fight our battles for us. This model was demonstrated as long ago as the 1950s when Edward Lansdale and other advisers helped the Philippines put down a Marxist uprising, and has been repeated more recently in Somalia and the Phillipines.

Yet, important as it is, the United States military has not put enough emphasis on training and promoting experts in foreign military assistance. Such duty has traditionally been seen as a hindrance to promotion, which has made it tough to attract the best officers.

Lt. Col. John Nagl, a counterinsurgency expert, has suggested setting up an “adviser corps” of 20,000 soldiers. His idea would make advisory service not a career detour but a career in itself, equal, at least in theory, to infantry, armor and other traditional specialties. Some advisers, in turn, could be deployed as part of the “country team” at American embassies — something that happened routinely in the 1950s and ’60s but has since fallen into disuse.

Along with pushing advisory expertise, the armed forces also need to promote linguistic and cultural knowledge. Such skills are to be found primarily in Foreign Area Officers, but that is another career field whose practitioners are traditionally expected to commit career suicide. The military needs to increase the ranks of Foreign Area Officers and to provide more rewards for their much-needed service. We will have a hard time prevailing in today’s war as long as fewer than one-half of 1 percent of all service members have any grasp of Arabic.

Even while expanding governmental capacity, we also need to improve coordination among various branches of government, and between the government and nongovernmental and international organizations. That type of unified action has been in short supply in Iraq and Afghanistan, leading to nonstop complaints about how broken the “interagency” process has become.

James R. Locher, a former Congressional aide who helped draft the 1986 Goldwater-Nichols Act that brought greater coordination among the different branches of the military, is now leading a nonpartisan consortium of Washington policy and research groups that is trying to devise legislation to enhance the “unity of effort” among different branches of the government. Ideas under consideration include forcing civilian bureaucrats to serve a “joint tour” in a different agency and creating regional diplomatic coordinators who would marshal civilian agencies in the same way that the Pentagon’s Central Command and Pacific Command coordinate military units abroad. A partial prototype of this concept may be tested with the Defense Department’s new Africa Command, which is going to have a larger civilian component than the other combat commands.

Mr. Locher’s goal is to write a bill that would update the legendary National Security Act of 1947, which created the bureaucratic instruments (the C.I.A., Defense Department, National Security Council and the like) used to win the cold war. He hopes to have legislation ready in time for a new president in 2009. That’s an ambitious objective, but it’s one worth striving for if we’re going to adjust to the post-9/11 era of American foreign policy.

Some will no doubt object that to build up these capacities will encourage reckless “imperialism” or “militarism.” But improving our abilities in nation-building, strategic communications, security advising and related disciplines will actually lessen the chances that we will need to mount a major military intervention such as the one in Iraq. Our goal should be not just to deal with the aftermath of wars (Phase IV, in military parlance) but to solve problems before they grow into full-blown wars. In other words, to win Phase Zero.

Max Boot is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and the author of “War Made New: Weapons, Warriors and the Making of the Modern World.”

[mumbleypeg]

U.S. says may not need to order diplomats to Iraq
Fri Nov 16, 2007 11:05am EST
WASHINGTON, Nov 16 (Reuters) - The U.S. State Department said on Friday it may not need to force diplomats to serve in Iraq as enough staff have volunteered to go to the war zone.

Last month, the department said it might have to order some diplomats to Iraq, where many foreign service officers are reluctant to work because violence still rages four years after the U.S.-led invasion that toppled President Saddam Hussein.

Because of a lack of volunteers, the State Department had roughly 50 spots at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad and at joint U.S. military-diplomatic provincial reconstruction teams around the country that it could not fill.

"It appears that we are getting very nearly to the point where we will have volunteers for all of the open, identified jobs," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters. "We have candidates identified for all the jobs."

The possibility that the department might order some of its people to Iraq had upset U.S. diplomats, including one who publicly called this a "potential death sentence." (Writing by Arshad Mohammed; editing by Sue Pleming and Mohammad Zargham)




© Reuters 2006. All rights reserved.

[Abu Jack]

Washington Times
May 28, 2008
Pg. 12

State Eyes Drafting Reluctant Diplomats


The State Department has begun to identify diplomats who could be forced to serve in Iraq next year unless enough volunteers come forward to fill about 300 positions, the Associated Press has learned.

A departmentwide notice issued yesterday says officials have looked through the files of all Foreign Service officers and compiled a roster of candidates who are "particularly well-qualified" to work at the American Embassy in Baghdad.

If positions remain unfilled after the summer, they will become the core of a group of "prime candidates" who may be forced to go to Iraq, it says.

:rolleyes:

Abu Jack

[The Reaper]

Washington Times
May 28, 2008
Pg. 12

State Eyes Drafting Reluctant Diplomats


The State Department has begun to identify diplomats who could be forced to serve in Iraq next year unless enough volunteers come forward to fill about 300 positions, the Associated Press has learned.

A departmentwide notice issued yesterday says officials have looked through the files of all Foreign Service officers and compiled a roster of candidates who are "particularly well-qualified" to work at the American Embassy in Baghdad.

If positions remain unfilled after the summer, they will become the core of a group of "prime candidates" who may be forced to go to Iraq, it says.

Actually, they can't be "forced" to go to Iraq.

Unlike those of us in uniform, they can quit in lieu of taking the assignment. The only stick State has is future service and the potential loss of retirement bennies.

Military, OTOH, can be forced to go, and extended beyond their contracts by Stop Loss and unit deployment policies.

TR

[kgoerz]

Having spent a lot of time working in Embassy's. There are some good dedicated people working in the DOS. But as a whole. I am amazed that we as a Government actually accomplish anything. If they were working for profit they would of went out of business many years ago.

[Defender968]

Duncan Hunter has a proposal along these lines.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58494

I Think Mr. Hunter’s idea is fantastic, let our wounded continue to serve in a different capacity if they would like to. State should give these disgraceful whiners their pink slips. If they were so upset by having to go to Iraq they should have just quit instead of making a scene and bringing discredit to their agency, our government and more importantly without undermining the mission!

[Trip_Wire (RIP)]

On the times that I had to work with them on foreign VIPs that didn't qualify for SS protection, I found them to be as described in the header. :(

[JJ_BPK]

I've got a theory:

These whining DoS AH's are thinking Obama is going to be the next POTUS..

And he's going to pull a Jimmy Cater and leave them hanging,,

Hanging in the Green Zone..

So Obama can brag about having all the troops home by Xmas..

Which leads us to:

Operation Eagle Claw, Evening Light, Rice Bowl or What Ever: Pas Deux

My $00.00002 cents..