Posted on 10/31/2007 3:06:51 PM PDT by BGHater
Hundreds of US diplomats have protested against a government move to force them to accept postings in war-torn Iraq.
About 300 angry diplomats attended a meeting at the state department, at which one labelled the decision a "potential death sentence".
If too few volunteer, some will be forced to go to Iraq - or risk dismissal, except those exempted for medical or personal hardship reasons.
Iraq postings have previously been filled on a voluntary basis.
'Prime candidates'
The meeting was called to explain the "forced assignments" order made by state department human resources director Harry Thomas.
Last Friday, he notified about 250 "prime candidates" that they had been selected for one of 48 one-year postings at the embassy in Baghdad or in a Provincial Reconstruction Team elsewhere in the country.
They were given 10 days to reply.
Senior diplomat Jack Croddy, who once worked as a political adviser with Nato forces, highlighted safety fears of staff who would be forced to serve in a war zone.
"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," Mr Croddy said.
"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?
"You know that at any other [country] in the world, the embassy would be closed at this point."
For months, US officials have been warning that a lack of volunteers could lead to this diplomatic call-up, says the BBC's James Coomarasamy in Washington.
Many positions are due to become vacant in 2008.
But unions say the constantly growing embassy in Iraq is straining human resources.
An attractive financial package is being offered as well as a generous leave allowance.
But the Baghdad embassy is considered a hardship posting due to security risks and because spouses and children must be left at home.
American diplomats have been sent on forced assignments before - some had to take postings in some African countries in the 1970s and 1980s, and in 1969 an entire class of new foreign service officers was sent to Vietnam.
Soooo overused, media Commies.
If they refuse to serve in Iraq...fire them. Period!
Iraq is a relatively dangerous place, but how many American diplomats have actually been killed or injured in Iraq?
If they don't want to accept the assignment, then they have the same choice that people in private industry have when their employer assigns them a job somewhere else. They can quit.
Already here with lots of comments:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1919136/posts
All leaking libs, I hope.
Good ... Send ‘em to Pakistan instead!
So much for loyalty at the State department.
Dismiss for cause.
TC
That one phrase speaks so much to what is wrong with the petty, hostile kingdom known as the US State Department.
“And it’s much harder to leak stuff to the NYT if I’m overseas.”
What a great opportunity to separate the sheep from the goats, and throw the goats out the door!
A few hundred “diplomants” from the State Department would never be missed, provided they try not to fire the few good ones. This way, the process is almost self-selecting.
Well I’m not happy about my jury duty notice either. I have to go to war torn downtown Los Angeles.
Jack Croddy, the Pride of the U.S. State Department. If this freakin’ coward has a job tomorrow, I’m going to call Condi herself. Shame on those people, shame on them.
This is a real good way of clearing Foggy Bottom of liberals and cowards, actually.
I just wish Bush started it three or four years ago.
Mr. Crappy is a coward.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.