Who will raise our diplomatic children if we are dead or seriously wounded?

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by MarkG
actually, they joined with the presumption that wont be forced to a specific position.

Its in black and white simple language when they join that they can be posted anywhere at the pleasure of the department if it needs them there (even though this is very rarely used, as opposed to enticements). About 1/3 of all foreign are consider either hardship or dangerous postings, but for 40 years they have manged to get enough personanel to these without using this clause.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And besides, this was a town hall meeting, persumably, I'd imagine, to ask the rank and file what they personally thought (as well as giving them the news). So, what's the big deal?

[Seeker]

OK, so I'm getting the impression that this is really about them disagreeing with Bush policy.

Well why don't they just SAY SO up front instead of all this 'potential death sentence' rubbish, it would make people respect them a lot more.

If you don't wanna whine, you gotta resign...catchy ain't it.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Seeker
OK, so I'm getting the impression that this is really about them disagreeing with Bush policy.

Not really, though somewhat. All diplomats have been publicly agreeing with Bush policies for the last 7 years, regardless of how they actually feel. That's their job, and they do their jobs.

It's also not about danger. State has little problem staffing Kabul, Khartoum, Nairobi, Georgetown, or Port Moresby, even though each of those is arguably more dangerous than Iraq .

It's really about 3 things:

1) The lack of transparency in the process. There was no preparation of the rank-and-file for this announcement. The cable announcing the decision went out at around 6:30 pm EDT, when only a handful of diplomate, in consulates like Vancouver and Tiajuana, were still at work. The rest of the diplomatic corps learned of the decision from the Washington Post or from Google News. This is not how the State traditionally handles this kind of news; State is small, liberal, democratic, and consensus-driven, and this kind of high-handed after-hours annoncement is not at all consistent with State practice or culture.

2) There's a broad feeling at State -- voiced especially by those who have already served in Iraq -- that there is serious, meaningful work to be done in Iraq right now, but it's not work for diplomats. Diplomats do their work in at least somewhat stable countries with at least somewhat meaningful governments; they work under these conditions not because they are weenies, but because those are the preconditions for diplomacy to work at all.

Someone at the press conference said, "If this [Iraq] were any other country in the world, we would have closed the embassy by now" -- and that's exactly right. There's a sense that we're standing up the largest embassy in the world in Baghdad not because the need is greatest there, but because the Bush Administration refuses to admit that things aren't going as planned, ever. Not surprisingly, some people have a problem with separating from their families and risking PTSD (a documented, serious problem among State workers returning from Iraq) just so the worst president of their lifetimes can try to sustain a fiction.

That said, when Iraq reaches even the precarious stability than Afghanistan now has, they'll have no trouble staffing Iraq -- because at that point, there will finally be some work for State to do.

3) But the truth is, they're having no trouble staffing Iraq now. The Foreign Service is small, and staffing shortages are common worldwide; on average, our embassies are staffed at about 80% of desired capacity. Iraq, for which the administration has created 250 Foreign Service positions, has 202 volunteers -- 80%. The question of why Iraq should be the one country in the world NOT subject to ordinary staffing shortages is legitimate, especially given objection #2, above.

And if people don't like it, they can resign -- and they will. I probably would, if called -- even though I'm volunteering for other extremely dangerous posts next tour, including Afghanistan. This isn't about whining (though of course there are whiners, just like in any other profession); it's about the integrity of the Foreign Service -- about the work that diplomats can and should do as well as about its culture, which matters as much to diplomats as Marine Corps culture matters to jarheads.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Rufus

[DinoDoc]

Why didn't mention that stuff rather than the whining, self serving objections they did?

[Patroklos]

Because Rufus is the damage control.

Hatchet Rufus

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Why didn't mention that stuff rather than the whining, self serving objections they did?

I've seen the whole town meeting on tape. They did mention all that stuff. You didn't read it, though, because "Diplomats Object To Death Sentence" sells newspapers, while "Diplomats Object To Lack Of Transparency in HR Process" doesn't. Try to contain your surprise.

[Dinner]

Doesn't sound like whining. Given that Foreign Serivce agents, unlike the military, can resign I'd suggest the administration is going about this in a counter productive manner. If they want more willing workers then they should go with the tried and true methods of attracting workers... Namely improving pay and/or working conditions.

It is difficult to improve working conditions in a war zone but maybe they could offer more time off after they finish a tour, let volunteers choose their next duty location, or some other such offer. Increasing pay should be the easiest and most straightforward way to get willing workers. If they can afford to pay contractors $120k a year then why not offer Foreign Service workers sizable bonuses for going to war zones? That should net plenty of volunteers.

[Dinner]

Of course my previous post assumes the administration cares about preserving senior talent at the Foreign Service and preventing a possible mass exodus. Given the administration's record that might not be a good assumption.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Namely improving pay and/or working conditions.

An attractive financial package is being offered as well as a generous leave allowance. - The OP you obviously didn't read

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
I've seen the whole town meeting on tape. They did mention all that stuff.

Well OK then.

That Jack Croddy still sounds like a whiner though but my respect for those that actually had substantive objections went up. The coverage made it seem like they were all like him.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
An attractive financial package is being offered as well as a generous leave allowance. - The OP you obviously didn't read

My point being that it obviously isn't enough because they're not filling all their spots or at least not filling the vacancies to a level they consider acceptable.

Ergo my comment about increasing pay or improving working conditions.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Lancer
I'd go tomorrow if they give me three squares a day and $80,000 non taxed at the end of one year, all the benefits and a two million $ life insurance policy for the duration.

See?? They can get people to go....they just need to pay enough.

[Zkribbler]

An attractive financial package is being offered as well as a generous leave allowance. - The OP you obviously didn't read

...or we have a different standards for what constitutes "attractive financial package." I think it should be one that attracts people.