Diploweenies Redux

Dean Barnett at the Weekly Standard blog steps up the rhetoric against "diploweenies" who don't want to be conscripted for service in Iraq, adding a casual slander to the schoolyard-level insults:

Why would a professional diplomat care to engage the most urgent diplomatic challenge of the 21st century when he could instead be inflating the ego of some third world potentate while being feted as some kind of royalty? Besides, since Iraq lacks a functional government that's hostile to American interests, "going native" isn't even an option.

Thank God for the past seven years our policies have been driven by the manly-men of the Standard and not the treasonous goons at Foggy Bottom! Ignoring the advice of America's foreign service professionals has, thus far, reaped massive benefits in terms of unprecedented international isolation. But it gets crazier as Barnett endorses a Duncan Hunter plan to really stick it to the diploweenies by pulling wounded soldiers out of their hospital beds to redeploy them to Iraq, but this time to conduct diplomatic missions they're not trained for. That'll show 'em!

Meanwhile, previously-hyped-in-this-space congressional candidate Dan Grant (Texas-10) is a former diploweenie himself who served in Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq before coming home to run for congress and is now airing his first ad:

I think I'd rather listen to him than to the Standard.

Comments

Preface: I know that politics ain't beanbag. And I think the Standard attacking people who are giving years of their lives in the difficult and poorly paid service of their country is reprehensible. And I also think the administration's attempts to stifle news coverage of American casualties returning home are wrong-headed. All that being said . . .

Point: That is video of a soldier returning home in a coffin. Using that video to advance your own political career is, whatever else I might say about it, deeply politically unwise.

Posted by southpaw | November 1, 2007 9:02 PM

Southpaw, you have a gift for understatement.

That ad is going to be a GOP talking point. What an incredibly stupid, self-aggrandizing and politically tone-deaf thing to do.

Posted by Mess-o-potamia | November 1, 2007 9:09 PM

Using that video to advance your own political career is, whatever else I might say about it, deeply politically unwise.

That ad is going to be a GOP talking point.

Dumb and Dumber.

Posted by Econobuzz | November 1, 2007 9:22 PM

Southpaw and Mess: I am more worried about the administration's hiding this stuff from people so that more solidiers can come home. Why again shouldn't he show the human and economic cost of the war? Wouldn't only showing the economic cost be even MORE insensitive?

Posted by d | November 1, 2007 9:46 PM

Correction:

Southpaw and Mess: I am more worried about the administration's hiding this stuff from people so that more solidiers can come home THE SAME WAY. Why again shouldn't he show the human and economic cost of the war? Wouldn't only showing the economic cost be even MORE insensitive?

Posted by d | November 1, 2007 9:48 PM

The Weekly Standard is the school paper for a schoolboy political philosophy.

Nonetheless, I gotta say, my level of sympathy for diplomats who are refusing to serve in Iraq asymptotically approaches zero.

We need your help to get out of this mess, people. Go do your goddamn jobs.

Posted by urbino | November 1, 2007 9:55 PM

I think this is an additional indication (the passport fiasco was another one) of what a substandard job Rice is doing in running the State department by how unprofessional that organization has become.

I cannot imagine 300 soldiers loudly and publicly disobeying orders to go to Iraq.

Posted by Kenny | November 1, 2007 10:20 PM

I don't think Republicans have had any problem using the deaths of American soldiers for political purposes, and I think this ad is a pretty good way for a Dem to do it. It's stark and simple and respectful -- perhaps a tone capable of cutting through some of the right-wing bombast that surrounds the war in many people's minds.

What I don't like is that the voiceover says "I've been to Iraq" instead of clarifying, a little bit, what exactly Mr. Grant was doing there. "Been to Iraq," in the absence of a blog post indicating otherwise, would make me think he had been on some uninformative public-relations tour of the kind that various bloggers and congresspeople have been on.

Posted by Tom | November 1, 2007 10:25 PM

From Hunter's press release:

"Let’s replace these reluctant Nellies with America’s finest citizens."

Is there a way to read that without concluding that Hunter is calling the diplomatic staff gay?

Unless the State Department is filled with Tobias Funke clones...

Posted by Ben | November 1, 2007 10:49 PM

I cannot imagine 300 soldiers loudly and publicly disobeying orders to go to Iraq.

I'm not sure it's quite the same. I believe the Foreign Services Officers can resign. So this is really part of a negotiation. I don't know how this cuts or what it says, but it's unfortunate.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | November 1, 2007 10:56 PM

It is foolish to force foreign service officers to go to Iraq. I speak from personal experience. I was in our embassy in Saigon for more that five years stretching from 1963 to 1975. We forced a number of people to go when they didn't want to, either because of the danger or because they thought that war was wrong. When you are disenchanted, you don't do very good work--several were useless and others were more work than they were worth. Disenchantment with the Iraq war is probably a major reason for many not wanting to go--don't force them.

Posted by John Bennett | November 1, 2007 10:56 PM

Southpaw and Mess: I am more worried about the administration's hiding this stuff from people so that more solidiers can come home THE SAME WAY. Why again shouldn't he show the human and economic cost of the war? Wouldn't only showing the economic cost be even MORE insensitive?

As I said, there probably should be more news coverage of these moments. And obviously, it's legitimate to take a different view of the politics of this than I do, but I'll try to explain why I think this is a terrible mistake:

The ad is not news coverage and it is not just symbolism or detached argument; it is serving the interests of Dan Grant.

We do not know whether the soldier in the coffin thought Dan Grant should be elected to the House of Representatives in 2008, nor do we know whether the soldier opposed the war. Nevertheless, the ad has appropriated the emotional impact of that soldier's tragic homecoming to benefit Dan Grant's political prospects.

That's not to say that one can't talk about the human cost of the war; I can imagine many powerful and acceptable ways to do that. It is just to say that using a real soldier's death to emphasize your point and get people to vote for you may strike voters as disrespectful, unsavory, and unworthy of the office the candidate seeks to hold.

Posted by southpaw | November 1, 2007 10:59 PM

If civil service rules allow for canning diplomats who refuse dangerous assignments, this could be a way for the administration to clean out some of the folks at State who have attempted to impede the implementation of the elected government's foreign policy: just order those folks to Iraq or Afghanistan and let them quit. Do the same thing with the "permanent government" types at the CIA, and it might be easier for the next President to implement his (or her) foreign policy.

Posted by Fred | November 1, 2007 11:00 PM

If civil service rules allow for canning diplomats who refuse dangerous assignments, this could be a way for the administration to clean out some of the folks at State who have attempted to impede the implementation of the elected government's foreign policy:

If your political enemies go and get killed it's an even better deal.

I think I remember this from Sunday School. Don't just restrict it to political enemies, send the hotties husband over to Iraq. This is what executive power is all about.

Posted by Ed Marshall | November 1, 2007 11:08 PM

Want to bet the people this policy is targeted against are people against starting a war with Iran?

So, yeah, forcing them to go to Iraq and getting them to quit would be a typical Cheney move.

The whole "Iranians are killing US soldiers in Iraq" crap is by all accounts an attempt to overcome the naysayers in the Pentagon who are against starting a war with Iran. Cheney figures they can't complain - certainly not publicly - if the war is "justified" by a "support the troops" propaganda line. And even if the Pentagon naysayers do quit and criticize Bush publicly when he starts the war, the right wing can easily tar and feather them with that line of "betraying the troops."

The line also works with the public. The latest poll shows 52% of US citizens supporting a military strike on Iran. Cheney believed he only needed 40% to make it a go. Well, he's got that - and that's up from previous polls, so the percentage is probably still on the way up.

Things got better for Cheney when Petraeus made a big deal about Iran being behind the Iraq insurgents. That got wide coverage and almost certainly boosted support for the Iran war, which was dragging up until then because not everybody believed the "nuclear weapons program" crap.

So this business with the foreign service people is probably a "pre-war house cleaning", so Cheney doesn't have to worry about any "stab in the back" types like Colin Powell turning up later.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | November 1, 2007 11:30 PM

It is foolish to force foreign service officers to go to Iraq. I speak from personal experience.

I appreciate the problems, John, and your experience, but, wow, that's an alarming picture of our foreign service you paint. Aren't these people supposed to be professionals? Professionals show up and do the job right, regardless of how they feel about it. I certainly don't agree with every project my bosses decide to pursue, but I still show up and do my best every day to make it work.

Disenchantment with the Iraq war is probably a major reason for many not wanting to go...

Not to put too fine a point on it, but: tough titties. I don't get this attitude -- their attitude, not yours -- that they won't go and, if forced, won't do a good job just because they don't think invading Iraq was a good idea. It's childish. Please tell me our foreign service people are better than that.

Please tell me they understood before they entered their career that, like soldiers, they would be implementing other people's policies, not setting policy themselves, and they would have to do that job even when they thought the policy was fubar (which the decision to invade Iraq clearly was).

Posted by urbino | November 1, 2007 11:33 PM

Southpaw: It seems to me that it's normal behavior for political candidates to invoke the misfortunes of others -- whether it's someone's death in Iraq, or someone's death due to crime (e.g., whoever it was that Willie Horton killed), or someone's loss of a job allegedly due to NAFTA, or whatever else. Who knows how many of the 9/11 dead would have wanted their deaths to be used to sell an invasion of Iraq and the (re)election of Bush?

And as much as I hate the Republicans' use of 9/11, I can't object in general to politicians invoking people's misfortunes in their campaigns, because politicians need to talk about those misfortunes in order to tell us what they'll do to fix the situations that led to them. Dan Grant needs to be able to say, basically, "too many U.S. soldiers have died in Iraq, so you should elect me because I'll push for withdrawal from Iraq" (or whatever policy he's willing to commit to).

You treat the ad as if it focuses on one individual soldier's death. Granted, it does show one flag-draped coffin, presumably containing one actual dead U.S. soldier. But few or none of those watching the ad could tell which soldier it is, or what that soldier's politics were. The coffin stands for all the dead soldiers, and regardless of what any of them would have wanted, Dan Grant is entitled to campaign and offer his views on what should be done now in response to their deaths.

So that's why I think it's legitimate. I'm not sure if you're objecting on that basis, or purely on the basis that you think it's a politically ineffective strategy. If it's the latter, I disagree because it seems to me that Republicans have been pretty successful with rhetoric capitalizing on the deaths of U.S. soldiers.

Posted by Tom | November 1, 2007 11:37 PM

I agree with southpaw.

the add comes across to me as sleazy and exploitative.

Posted by thehova | November 1, 2007 11:47 PM

Professionals show up and do the job right, regardless of how they feel about it.

But professionals are also people, with ethics, aren't they? Why is it unprofessional to resist doing something you think is wrong -- especially if the action in question has life-or-death consequences? Would an engineer, ordered to build a bridge in what he believes is an unsafe manner, be "unprofessional" if he refused?

they won't go and, if forced, won't do a good job just because they don't think invading Iraq was a good idea

What if their objections are not only to the decision to invade Iraq, but to the U.S.'s current diplomatic strategy in Iraq?

like soldiers, they would be implementing other people's policies, not setting policy themselves

As others have noted, soldiers are unusual in that they can't resign and in that the exigencies of war make it especially important that they be utterly obedient.

Most professionals work in jobs where they have to implement policies set by others. I don't think it makes sense to have a norm whereby professionals should never complain, resist, or resign over policies they have sufficiently strong objections to.

Posted by Tom | November 1, 2007 11:51 PM

What he said, they aren't soldiers.

Taking a foreign service job in Iraq would be like asking the guy who had spent his life working on drug safety who got to the FDA and they hand him an assignment to tell people that eating mercury cures baldness, makes you grow bigger genitals, and increases your odd's of winning the lottery.

Posted by Ed Marshall | November 1, 2007 11:58 PM

Tom,

That's nicely put. I do disagree with you on the politics and the substance. And I suppose we'll know in a year or so who was right.

I think it is worthwhile to examine whether this situation is really equivalent to the ones you cite: republican rhetoric capitalizing on the deaths of U.S. soldiers, 9/11, and Willie Horton.

I certainly didn't mean to imply that there's not any political gain to be had by talking about soldiers' deaths. Politicians have been taking advantage of that since before the Gettysburg Address. But it's a risky business, particularly for those who do not support the soldiers' mission. And I have not ever seen an ad that more blatantly connected footage of a funeral rite of an American soldier to the political cause of a politician (who, btw, does not seem to have a military background).

As for Willie Horton and 9/11, I think it's important to recognize that the political usage of these issues was also heavily constrained.

You did not see the funerals of Willie Horton's victims in campaign ads . . . the focus of those ads was channeling outrage at Horton and Dukakis, not (by my lights) on exploiting the private grief of the victims.

I won't get into a full-scale discussion of the politics of 9/11 because, frankly, I don't have the carpal tunnels for it. But, again, for all the focus on that tragedy, I would point out that IIRC a zone of privacy was observed around the private burial ceremonies of the victims.

All that said, you seem like a reasonable person and you may well be right. I still think the ad is in poor taste.

Posted by southpaw | November 2, 2007 12:08 AM

Would an engineer, ordered to build a bridge in what he believes is an unsafe manner, be "unprofessional" if he refused?

Unfortunately, mixaphorically speaking, that bridge has sailed. The bridge has already been built (or, in this case, destroyed). These engineers are refusing to go help fix it.

What if their objections are not only to the decision to invade Iraq, but to the U.S.'s current diplomatic strategy in Iraq?

Then they are free and, as far as I'm concerned, strongly encouraged to do what they can to change the strategy, but not while refusing to try to implement any strategy.

If there's going to be any progress in Iraq -- either for the Iraqi people, or for us -- it's got to happen on the political front, and that's the State Dept's portfolio. If we can't get FSOs to go help, we're well and truly screwed.

I'm a liberal; I'm for diplomacy.

soldiers are unusual in that they can't resign and in that the exigencies of war make it especially important that they be utterly obedient

Soldiers can resign, just not effective immediately; witness the current crisis in mid-level officers. And while pointing this out doesn't advance my argument, it is nonetheless the case that they also don't have to be -- and shouldn't be -- utterly obedient.

I don't think it makes sense to have a norm whereby professionals should never complain, resist, or resign over policies they have sufficiently strong objections to.

I haven't heard anybody say FSOs can't or shouldn't complain or resist. And they're obviously free to resign. Judging by the DoJ example, I think a threat of mass resignation would've been a useful, admirable, even effective tactic, oh, say, 3 or 4 years ago.

But this is now, the policy is already out the door, and we're not talking about people resigning in protest of Iraq policy. We're talking about people simply refusing to go do their jobs where it's dangerous.

Posted by urbino | November 2, 2007 12:09 AM

Tom,

Foreign Service Officers are free to resign, but they aren't free to stay on the State Department payroll, refuse orders, and try to obstruct the elected government's foreign policy.

Posted by Fred | November 2, 2007 12:52 AM

What you're seeing here is several types of dissatisfaction coming together at once. First, the people who are left in the State Department, after years of demoralization, are increasingly lesser-quality people with few strong convictions, who are in the job for career reasons. They may or may not agree with policy in Iraq; they certainly aren't interested in risking their lives for it.

Second, there are still people who disagree with Iraq policy and are nurturing their careers in the hope of an improvement after Bush leaves. They certainly aren't interested in getting killed over a policy they disagree with.

Third, they all signed up under defined terms which would allow them to accept or reject postings. Their deals are now being changed. In the private sector, they wouldn't have to comply with that kind of breach of contract. Their loyalty to country should be expected to carry them to a certain point. But when they are being asked to go along with a breach of their contract for the good of the country in support of a stupid policy that isn't for the good of the country, it's not surprising that a lot of them say, the hell with it.

Finally, any administration that loses control of its people in this fashion is displaying strong signs of managerial incompetence. Morale at State under Colin Powell was extremely high, until 2003. The more power has been yanked from State and handed to the Pentagon and OVC, the more amateurish outsiders have wrecked US foreign policy against the advice of State, the more difficulty the Admin has been having from Foreign Service officers. The Bush Admin is getting what it deserves.

Posted by brooksfoe | November 2, 2007 1:03 AM

Re "We're talking about people simply refusing to go do their jobs where it's dangerous.."- Yes, dangerous.
As one FS professional of 3+ decades pointed out: "If this were anywhere else in the world, the embassy would be closed." Part of the use of "diplomats" in Iraq is, essentially, overt meddling in the politics of another country- because we're occupying that country- and, rather than have to declare martial law, our administration prefers to proffer the figleaf of autonomy- while our State Dept & "Defense" Dept run things there... to facilitate all the "rehab" work that our country is paying out (mostly to companies owned by fellow countrymen) to "help" the poor puppets who we don't trust to run their own affairs.
Re "..Not to put too fine a point on it, but: tough titties. I don't get this attitude -- their attitude, not yours -- that they won't go and, if forced, won't do a good job just because they don't think invading Iraq was a good idea. It's childish. Please tell me our foreign service people are better than that.."
Obviously the Charge of the Light Brigade, while regrettable, was a necessary exercise in that it displayed a discipline to our foes, such that it must strike fear into their hearts and change their attitudes & strategies in the conflict that they continue to force onto us, eleven time zones from home. uh-huh... ^..^

Posted by herbert browne | November 2, 2007 1:07 AM

Say, Fred, are you familiar with an old Brit-com, "Yes, Minister"? I believe you might find it instructive... chow ^..^

Posted by herbert browne | November 2, 2007 1:12 AM

"Obviously the Charge of the Light Brigade, while regrettable, was a necessary exercise in that it displayed a discipline to our foes..."

The Charge of the Light Brigade was the result of misinterpreted orders. The general's intent was for the cavalry brigade to attack horse-drawn artillery guns that were in transit, not to charge the Russians' dug-in artillery positions head-on.

Posted by Fred | November 2, 2007 1:12 AM

Obviously, the solution is outsourcing.

The modern conservative definition of diplomacy means PR. Statecraft is so passe, the job of the foreign service is to spin the demented fantasies of the Weekly Standard into facts that a world hungry for American hegemonic apologia will devour. Why have Foggy Bottom at all? Big government style waste in action, they should just raze it all and build a new office for Hill & Knowlton and they will show everyone the error of their ways.

Posted by Ed Marshall | November 2, 2007 1:19 AM

"As one FS professional of 3+ decades pointed out: "If this were anywhere else in the world, the embassy would be closed.""

This sounds bogus. We maintained a diplomatic presence in Lebanon during its civil war -- in fact, our current ambassador to Iraq was stationed in Lebanon then. One would think that a career diplomat would see the value of diplomacy in areas wracked by conflict; if an FSO just wants to go to cocktail parties in Paris, let him donate $10 million to the DNC or RNC in exchange for an ambassadorship.

Posted by Fred | November 2, 2007 1:27 AM

Fred, it's foolish enough that you think we're actually winning in Iraq. It's crazy enough that you think we were actually winning in Vietnam.

It now appears that you think the British were actually winning in Crimea! Amazing. I expect any day now to read that Napoleon's campaign in Russia was a triumph, that the Children's Crusade was a great victory, or that Pharaoh actually defeated the Israelites.

Posted by brooksfoe | November 2, 2007 1:58 AM

I suspect our foreign service is not nellies at all. And that they would go to Iraq in an instant if they thought it was worth it.

I think their reluctance shows their inside information at work.

Posted by jerry | November 2, 2007 2:43 AM

brooksfoe: It now appears that you think the British were actually winning in Crimea! Amazing. I expect any day now to read that Napoleon's campaign in Russia was a triumph, that the Children's Crusade was a great victory, or that Pharaoh actually defeated the Israelites.

Hate to say it, brooksfoe, but Fred is right and you are wrong. Read some history.

The allies (despite their generals) took Sevastopol in 1855, the main objective of the Crimean campaign. The Russians subsequently sought peace. The Treaty of Paris ended Russian attempts to dominate south-eastern Europe, and banned Russia from militarising the Black Sea, thus lifting the threat to the Ottoman Empire (which is what the war was about).

Fred's more or less right about the Charge of the Light Brigade, too - the intent was to prevent the Russians from dragging away Turkish guns from emplacements they had captured on the Causeway Heights; instead, the cavalry charged down the North Valley (to the north of the Heights) towards emplaced Russian guns at the east end.

Posted by ajay | November 2, 2007 5:59 AM

What strategy are they supposed to implement?

There is no strategy:

Key U.S. efforts to stabilize and rebuild Iraq lack strategies with clear purpose, scope, roles, responsibilities, and performance measures. The weaknesses in U.S. strategic planning are compounded by the Iraqi government’s lack of integrated strategic planning in its critical energy sector.

Posted by novakant | November 2, 2007 6:59 AM

Sounds like "professional" is a handy euphemism for robot, unthinking drone, or even slave. These people are supposed to be "professionals"! I thought they were supposed to be people. Are they bound by law to serve the U.S. government? I don't know, I'm asking.

Posted by Bill | November 2, 2007 8:52 AM

The ad comes across as necessary and over due. There should be pics of the wounded, too. A William Talman (see below) kind of ad. This is the cost of oil, people. This is the cost of your auto-pilot patriotism.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=XmjRkpge-jk

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | November 2, 2007 9:02 AM

A couple of points worth emphasizing:

1.)"They certainly aren't interested in getting killed over a policy they disagree with."

2.)"Third, they all signed up under defined terms which would allow them to accept or reject postings. Their deals are now being changed."

Tough titties???!!! "These engineers are refusing to go help fix it."

Well, I'm an engineer, and I've been asked to go into unsafe environments to evaluate conditions. When I do so, I demand that those making the request make the working environment as safe as possible (PPE, retrieval devices, rescue crews). If those asking do not provide this, I refuse to participate. It's called self preservation and if someone asks me to do something I deem unsafe, I get to refuse without losing my job.

Now, if my employer changes my contract (such as forcing me to risk my life when I was hired under different pretenses) without negotiations, I can sue my employer for breech of contract.

For a liberal, and a supporter of diplomacy, you have a fucked up sense of "diplomatic negotiations". And if you're so concerned about it, get off your ass and volunteer instead of deciding that it's your prerogative to send someone else to their death without negotiating a CHANGE to their contractual agreements.

And if you think sacrifice (literal sacrifice) is to be expected from every single employee of the Federal, State, and local government, maybe you should ask yourself why it should stop with government employees. If the stability of Iraq and the Middle East is so important and if we are in a life and death struggle for humanity, why the hell isn't every single citizen in this country being asked to sacrifice? Why the hell isn't there a draft?

Bush can decide to make some people his bitch just because they chose a career in the State Department, and urbino gets to accuse them of dereliction of duty? Myself, I'd quit in an instant and tell Bush and urbino to go fuck themselves. But not everyone has that option; people have their whole lives and careers tied up in this agency. Plenty of people have already left despite the damage it did to their careers and lives. One way to guarantee it will get worse is to have someone get up on their soapbox and DEMAND even more sacrifice and meaningless death without volunteering themselves.

Posted by Rihilism | November 2, 2007 9:43 AM

I think Rihilism has it nailed, but as an aside, just for comic relief: reading through the "Worldwide Standard" blog, one comes across a note from Dean Barnett that "Goldfarb is away this morning, covering a Hilary Clinton event at Wellsley College". And these are the guys complaining that State Department professionals aren't sufficiently macho and eager to get shipped off to Iraq? Satire really is dead ...

But seriously, why doesn't The Weekly Standard have a Baghdad bureau, or at least have *somebody* somewhere in Iraq? These guys are constantly barking about how Iraq is the Central Front in the GWOT, and about how wonderfully safe things are now thanks to Petraeus and the surge (only 29 American soldiers killed last month! good times!) ... so what the hell is stopping them from opening up an office in Baghdad, or at least Mosul? I'm not even asking them to sign up and get shipped off somewhere not of their choosing, I'm asking why they're unable to find *anybody* on their own staff willing to spend six months in Iraq on the *Standard*'s dime?

Posted by Taras Bulba | November 2, 2007 12:09 PM

so what the hell is stopping them from opening up an office in Baghdad, or at least Mosul? I'm not even asking them to sign up and get shipped off somewhere not of their choosing, I'm asking why they're unable to find *anybody* on their own staff willing to spend six months in Iraq on the *Standard*'s dime?

This isn't new. No less an imperialist than Niall Ferguson mocked the reluctance of American imperialists to follow the example of British second sons to man the walls of the empire. You can't have an empire if nobody wants to administer it. And conservatives don't want to administer it: they want to sell stocks and bonds, draw up contracts, or write screeds.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | November 2, 2007 12:33 PM

And if you're so concerned about it, get off your ass and volunteer instead of deciding that it's your prerogative to send someone else to their death...

The number of things wrong with that statement is rather large, but I'll try to address them.

At the risk of pointing out the obvious, I'm not a diplomat. The people we need in Iraq are people who actually know what they're doing (especially since their bosses in DC are utterly clueless); I assume our trained, experienced FSOs are such people.

Second, of course I'm sending people into dangerous places. So are you. This is a democracy. Just because you and I lost the argument over whether to go to war in the first place doesn't mean we aren't still part of the polity that is sending them there. That's the part of democracy that's kind of a drag. Until we as a polity get all our people out of harm's way, we as a polity are sending/keeping them there. The question, then, for people like you and me, anyway, is how best to get them all out of harm's way as soon as possible.

I opposed the military surge because I didn't see how a few thousand more soldiers would move us any closer to that goal. (More on that, below.) I still don't. However, I do support a diplomatic surge, because it seems to me that does have a chance of speeding the day when we can get out of this mess.

If the stability of Iraq and the Middle East is so important and if we are in a life and death struggle for humanity, why the hell isn't every single citizen in this country being asked to sacrifice? Why the hell isn't there a draft?

I've been arguing for a draft for 2 years. Thanks for the support. I was against the war. I thought it was a stupid and obvious mistake. But once we went, yes, the whole nation should have been sacrificing. We shouldn't have been hearing, "Well, it really would take 400,000 troops to fight a proper counter-insurgency in Iraq, but we don't have that many troops, so we're just going to stay and try to make do with less than half that many." If we needed 400,000 troops to fight the war properly, we should have either drafted them or withdrawn, not sent a few thousand more.

As for being in "a life and death struggle for all of humanity," I think you have me confused with Norman Podhoretz, which testifies to your extreme lack of clarity, since I've said nothing that comes within 40,000 miles of that.

What I will say is that we are in a life and death struggle for the people we already have in Iraq. Would the best solution be to just bring them all home? Yes. Is there one chance in a double-super billion that that's going to happen before 2009, at the very earliest? No, not a single one. The current administration is going to keep more or less the current force-size there, no matter what. Their policies are stupid, but we are absolutely stuck with them. Therefore, ISTM we've got to try to find a way to advance the political situation in Iraq, and I just don't see how we can possibly do that if we don't even have our FSOs in the country.

Bush can decide to make some people his bitch just because they chose a career in the State Department, and urbino gets to accuse them of dereliction of duty? Myself, I'd quit in an instant and tell Bush and urbino to go fuck themselves.

Which suggests that, like me, you are not a diplomat. You might feel righteous in doing that, and you might feel like you're sticking it to Bush, but what you'd primarily be doing is refusing to do the job you signed up to do, in the place it most needs doing. You'd be abandoning the people we already have in harm's way in Iraq.

If the FSOs had/have a contract that says they can refuse dangerous assignments if they want to, so be it. We're screwed. And those of us on the Left might as well stop calling for less war and more diplomacy, because more diplomacy is not an option. Diplomacy doesn't do itself. It requires diplomats. And since our diplomats apparently won't go where they're needed (which tend to be dangerous places), America is not capable of diplomacy, regardless of who the president is.

Posted by urbino | November 2, 2007 3:02 PM

"However, I do support a diplomatic surge, because it seems to me that does have a chance of speeding the day when we can get out of this mess."

Diplomacy at a higher regional level is needed to stabilize Iraq before we start staffing the monstrous US embassy just so that George and Condi can get in their photo op.
You seem to be confusing the high level diplomacy that Rice, et al., should be doing on a regional basis with the lower level staff people who are being forced to serve one year terms that amounts to a potential death sentence. Let Rice and her cronies spend the next year in the green zone rather than people who did not sign up for a "tour of duty".

"Second, of course I'm sending people into dangerous places. So are you."

If it's my decision, I send them in with the equipment and resources they need. Sending in a wave of diplomats so you can feel that we are "achieving" a diplomatic victory is incredibly selfish and short-sighted. Throwing a bunch of bodies at a problem may work if you have no concern for causalities but it's a hell of a stupid way to keep qualified staff in place and ready and willing for the next crisis the Republicans lead us into.

"Their policies are stupid, but we are absolutely stuck with them."

Like hell we are. What we are stuck with are the people who continue to enable them and their stupid policies.

"Diplomacy doesn't do itself. It requires diplomats. And since our diplomats apparently won't go where they're needed (which tend to be dangerous places), America is not capable of diplomacy, regardless of who the president is."

So,...., the "diplomats" are our savior, we'll never survive unless the "diplomats" are willing to risk their lives so that we can "succeed". Yet, these same "diplomats" are telling you 1.)It’s a lost cause, 2.) It’s not safe and I'm likely to die 3.) I did NOT sign up for this 4.)I'm just a mid-level peon, where do you get off sending me to the middle of a war zone when Bush flies in for a photo op and is gone an hour later? 5.) Why the fuck do I have to give my life to pay for the sins of Bush/Cheney/Rice/Rumsfeld?

"Which suggests that, like me, you are not a diplomat. You might feel righteous in doing that, and you might feel like you're sticking it to Bush, but what you'd primarily be doing is refusing to do the job you signed up to do, in the place it most needs doing. You'd be abandoning the people we already have in harm's way in Iraq."

I've never been accused of being diplomatic and if I observe someone saying something particularly thoughtless and moronic, I don't hesitate to point it out. I feel neither righteous nor do I give a shit about George anymore. At this point, the best we can do is minimize the damage that gets done between now and next November. I'd rather not empty out the State Department through firings, quitting, retirement, or death so that maybe the next President will have a staff left to do what is necessary to fix whatever bad situations Bush gets us into next. What you want to do (force them to go and then claim they are not serving their country because they don't want to die) is the best method I can think of for driving the remaining qualified individuals out of government.

Posted by Rihilism | November 2, 2007 4:23 PM

So,...., the "diplomats" are our savior, we'll never survive unless the "diplomats" are willing to risk their lives so that we can "succeed".

You have a real knack for responding to arguments nobody made. You should get a talk-radio show.

the best method I can think of for driving the remaining qualified individuals out of government.

If they aren't willing to serve where they're needed, they aren't qualified.

1.)It’s a lost cause,

Then quit and go home. You're of no use, anyway.

2.) It’s not safe and I'm likely to die

And when you signed up to be a foreign service officer, you expected . . . what, exactly? A guaranteed career in nice European capitals?

3.) I did NOT sign up for this

You did. But if you're not willing to do it now, quit. Don't be dead weight hanging around everybody else's neck.

4.)I'm just a mid-level peon, where do you get off sending me to the middle of a war zone when Bush flies in for a photo op and is gone an hour later?

Grow the hell up.

5.) Why the fuck do I have to give my life to pay for the sins of Bush/Cheney/Rice/Rumsfeld?

Come down off the cross, Jesus, we've got actual work to do and we need your help.

~~

I'm not as crass as this exchange would suggest. I'm hoping our FSOs aren't as puerile as Rihilism's impersonation suggests.

Putting people's lives at risk is no small thing. But people's lives are already at risk, and getting all outraged over that hasn't change it. Bush isn't going to change his policy. The congressional Democrats aren't going to change his policy. To think otherwise at this late date is to leave the reality-based community for the faith-based one, as there is no empirical data to support the view that Bush will change or the Dems will force him to.

People's lives are already at risk, and they're going to stay at risk for the duration of Bush's term, at least. The question is how to minimize the risk, given the reality that the best way to do that -- withdrawal -- is simply not going to happen. IMHO, our best available option to reduce the risk to all concerned is progress on the Iraqi political front, and ISTM we need our FSOs for that.

I'd rather not empty out the State Department through firings, quitting, retirement, or death so that maybe the next President will have a staff left to do what is necessary to fix whatever bad situations Bush gets us into next

Well, hell, Rihilism. If they're not willing to go to the current mess he's gotten us into, what in the world makes you think they'll be willing to go help fix the next one? You think it's not going to be dangerous?

And if they do refuse to go, are you still going to support them and call everybody who doesn't "thoughtless and moronic"? Or are you going to change horses because, say, the president is a Democrat, and the dangerous place is Darfur?

Posted by urbino | November 2, 2007 5:37 PM

"You have a real knack for responding to arguments nobody made. You should get a talk-radio show."

You seem to be operating under the impression that rotating in a few hundred unwilling low to mid level personnel to replace the volunteers that are burnt out and are suffering from post traumatic stress syndrome

(http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-05-01-diplomats-stress_N.htm)

is essential to our diplomatic efforts in Iraq. Or that our soldiers are in dire need of fresh policy wonks. Might I suggest that your priorities are a bit askew and your understanding of our current "situation" is a tad simplistic (more on that below).

"Then quit and go home. You're of no use, anyway."

Nice. Perhaps we should tell them that the PTSS they are experiencing is the sign of a quitter.

"If they aren't willing to serve where they're needed, they aren't qualified."

As a wise man once said, "Only the Dark Side deals in absolutes..."

"You did. But if you're not willing to do it now, quit. Don't be dead weight hanging around everybody else's neck."

As has been previously pointed out, no they didn't.

"I'm not as crass as this exchange would suggest."

I find that hard to believe.

"I'm hoping our FSOs aren't as puerile as Rihilism's impersonation suggests"

Yes, because sanity and self-preservation are clear indications of puerile behavior.

"Putting people's lives at risk is no small thing. But people's lives are already at risk, and getting all outraged over that hasn't change it. Bush isn't going to change his policy. The congressional Democrats aren't going to change his policy...blah, blah, blah...

Well, hell, urbino, Bush has broken the military, why not let him break the State Department, too (actually it appears to be broke already). You seem to think that the government employees we are talking about are high-level diplomats. They are not, they are bureaucrats, not global crisis negotiators. They are policy wonks and career State Department officials. They haven't been asked to do anything like this since Vietnam (how that work out, btw).

You also seem to be under the impression that the soldiers we have in Iraq will benefit from having these bureaucrats in Iraq. Well, when you're taking fire from snipers, I'm sure the first thing that pops into your mind is, "Man, if we only had some more agricultural trade experts we be able to lick these insurgents".

What we need now is high-level region-wide negotiations to deal with a regional crisis. This is unlikely to happen until we have a new president and I suggest the FSO’s try find jobs in think tanks until a saner governmental employment opportunity presents itself (note to Brookings, fire O’Hanlon and any other deadweight that might be haunting the hallways and HIRE these people) . The addition of a few "fresh" bureaucrats (qualified, decent people who have already served their country far more than most Americans) is not critical to resolving the conflict. To suggest otherwise or to suggest that those who don't wish to be “drafted” into service are unqualified "diploweenies" (remember the title of the blog post?) is a clear indication of crassness "worthy" of the pages of the Weekly Standard.

Posted by Rihilism | November 2, 2007 7:35 PM

To suggest otherwise or to suggest that those who don't wish to be “drafted” into service are unqualified "diploweenies" (remember the title of the blog post?)

Yes. Remember that I haven't repeated, endorsed, or otherwise backed it?

Truly, I'm sorry that you can't tell the difference between me and The Weekly Standard, just because they don't support this FSO "uprising" and I don't support this FSO "uprising." That's the kind of muddled, knuckleheaded thinking that the Right specializes in. Wait, maybe that means everything you say is just like everything they say. Aha!

You seem to be operating under the impression that rotating in a few hundred unwilling low to mid level personnel to replace the volunteers that are burnt out and are suffering from post traumatic stress syndrome is essential to our diplomatic efforts in Iraq.

I'm operating under the impression that we're stuck in Iraq, our people are dying, their people are dying, the best fix for that isn't available, so we've got to find something that will at least improve things.

I'm operating under the impression that there is no military remedy for this problem (and never was one), that better statecraft is more likely to help (on the large, regional scale you refer to, on a national scale, and on a smaller, local scale), and that our FSOs are extremely bright and capable people who are very good at what they do and would therefore be an asset in that effort. I'm also under the impression that if the FSOs who are there are "burnt out and are suffering from post traumatic stress syndrome," then, yes, we absolutely need to rotate them out and send replacements.

Well, when you're taking fire from snipers, I'm sure the first thing that pops into your mind is, "Man, if we only had some more agricultural trade experts we be able to lick these insurgents".

Once again, this is the kind of bullshit caricaturing the Right specializes in. Knock it off.

Nice. Perhaps we should tell them that the PTSS they are experiencing is the sign of a quitter.

I have PTSS (although my doc still calls it PTSD). My guess, therefore, is that, unless you do, too, I both understand it better than you do and have more sympathy for its sufferers than you do. But, hey, thanks for adding that extra bit of meanness to the little caricature of me you're working up in your head. After all, that's how grown-ups conduct an intelligent argument.

I suggest the FSO’s try find jobs in think tanks until a saner governmental employment opportunity presents itself

Seriously, when will that be? If their definition of an insane government is one that sends them someplace that's dangerous as a result of boneheaded policy, when are they ever going to think the government is sane? When is it going to be the case that America has no need for FSOs anywhere except safe places, or even safe places and the unsafe places that aren't unsafe due to our own bungling?

If the next president decides we need more FSOs in Darfur or the West Bank or Pakistan or Columbia, and the FSOs disagree with that president's reasoning and refuse to go, where are we? All of those places are highly dangerous, and they're dangerous partly as a result of completely boneheaded American policies. Are we supposed to just cross them all off the list of places we can reasonably expect foreign service officers to go?

Posted by urbino | November 2, 2007 9:11 PM

"You also seem to be under the impression that the soldiers we have in Iraq will benefit from having these bureaucrats in Iraq. Well, when you're taking fire from snipers, I'm sure the first thing that pops into your mind is, "Man, if we only had some more agricultural trade experts we be able to lick these insurgents"."

What about after the soldiers and Marines have cleared an area of terrorists and are trying to get the economy up on its feet again and people working? That agricultural expert from State could be helpful as part of a Provincial Reconstruction Team. Iraq has great agricultural potential, and if that PRT is able to get grain mills working, the agricultural trade export could help them sell some of their grain for export. That would create jobs at the Iraqi mills, bring in cash, and help solidify the security gains of the troops.

Everyone agrees the solution can't just be military, so we can't expect the military to do its part alone in Iraq. State, and other departments, have roles to play too.

Posted by Fred | November 2, 2007 10:13 PM

"Nonetheless, I gotta say, my level of sympathy for diplomats who are refusing to serve in Iraq asymptotically approaches zero. We need your help to get out of this mess, people. Go do your goddamn jobs.",

This is your sympathy (I would have said empathy) for your present and future fellow sufferers of PTSD? Nearly zero? Is this how your boss treats you, “Go do your goddamn jobs”? Well, at least you were nice enough to ask for their help.

All of those places are highly dangerous, and they're dangerous partly as a result of completely boneheaded American policies. Are we supposed to just cross them all off the list of places we can reasonably expect Foreign Service officers to go?"

Well,..., yes, and we have. I seem to recall a helicopter and a US embassy and a crowd of refugees desperately trying to climb over the embassy fence while the last US personnel jumped into the helicopter…

"And if they do refuse to go, are you still going to support them and call everybody who doesn't "thoughtless and moronic"? Or are you going to change horses because, say, the president is a Democrat, and the dangerous place is Darfur?"

Yes, I will. If this or any President makes such foolish decisions, I would not hesitate to support career bureaucrats who are being asked to do something that they never agreed to. Is the government now able to change or break any contract it enters into and long as bodies are needed? If so, this is a draft.

And you keep bringing up these other theoretical conflicts that future Presidents might involve us in. First, if Darur, or Afganistan, or Iran, or Turkey, or any other war-zone needs our assistance, the President and Congress can approve a draft. I'm not willing to sacrifice non-volunteers in what I deem a futile effort simply because the President is a coward. We have a legal and military process to deal with compulsory service. You may not view compulsory service as "your job or your life", but I do.

"Once again, this is the kind of bullshit caricaturing the Right specializes in. Knock it off."

Well excuse me if I like to use a little absurdity to highlight someone's absurd arguments.

If you'd like to ask these people quit or retire for their unwillingness to risk their lives or the future health and prosperity, fine. If you want to dump me in with the same people who are asking for the heads of these people on a silver platter for their unwillingness to serve, fine, (though I'd suggest that what you've stated here is closer in spirit to their beliefs than anything I've uttered today). But let's not pretend that my snootiness and general irritability here, or anywhere else for that matter, somehow demonstrates the reasonableness of your position or the cogency of your arguments.

"If the next president decides we need more FSOs in Darfur or the West Bank or Pakistan or Columbia, and the FSOs disagree with that president's reasoning and refuse to go, where are we?"

We're fucked. The only thing we can hope to do at this point is to salvage what's left of our government. I sincerely hope that in the future our FSO's (and soon to be FSO’s) will agree to serve but I think it's going take a great deal of trust in the judgment and demeanor of our NEXT president. The last thing I want to do is destroy what's left of the State Department (or any other of the other Federal Agencies this administration has fubar) on one last "surge" that will be as fruitless as the current one. If you actually think that having these people in the middle of a war zone will somehow help the situation, then I think you need to step back a moment and consider that asking for retirements and firings en masse will do little to assist with the recruitment of new volunteers and the recruitment of those considering a career in government service.

"State, and other departments, have roles to play too"

I agree, I just don't think that the government has the right to require non-voluntary service without a draft. I honesty can't think of a better way to insure failure in Iraq than to force the people we need to either serve or be fired.

Posted by Rihilism | November 2, 2007 11:10 PM

This is your sympathy (I would have said empathy) for your present and future fellow sufferers of PTSD? Nearly zero?

For my fellow-sufferers, no. They took the risk. They went and did their jobs as best they could. But for people who won't even try to do their jobs? Yes, nearly zero sympathy.

Is the government now able to change or break any contract it enters into and long as bodies are needed?

Asked and answered, counselor. What part didn't you understand? If what you say is true, they absolutely don't have to go and, since they aren't willing to go, we're all screwed.

I'm not saying the FSOs are required to go fill the needed posts in Iraq; I'm saying they should go. They are in the foreign service. You keep talking as if that's really no different than working in the private sector or working for the Post Office. That clearly is not the case. If you volunteer to go work in the foreign service, you have to be prepared to go where you're needed and do your job the best you can, and you have to be prepared for that place to be dangerous. If you're not, don't choose the foreign service. Go work for the Post Office.

Well,..., yes, and we have. I seem to recall a helicopter and a US embassy and a crowd of refugees...

I find it puzzling that you think that example supports your argument. Why do you think that helicopter was needed? Because there weren't any American bureaucrats in that building?

No, of course not. The helicopter was there because members of the foreign service (among others) were there in that dangerous place. They were being removed because we were giving up entirely on that mission. Even the soldiers were coming home.

If we were pulling our soldiers out of Iraq, I wouldn't be arguing for sending the State Dept. people in to help them. There would be no purpose. But we aren't pulling our soldiers out of Iraq. That's not going to happen for at least another 18 months.

I'm not willing to sacrifice non-volunteers

But these people did volunteer. They weren't drafted into the foreign service. They volunteered. Now, you say they volunteered on the terms that they wouldn't have to go anywhere dangerous. If that's the case, that's the case. But they still should go. It is part of the job they volunteered for, whether their contract says that or not.

While I recognize they are well within their contractual rights to not go, no, I don't have much sympathy for them, nor do I respect them -- no more than I sympathize with or respect someone who voluntarily joins the military and then decides when the shooting starts that they don't want to go do the job they signed up for.

Are FSOs soldiers? No. Should they be forced to face the same level of danger soldiers are subjected to? No. And they aren't.

You may not view compulsory service as "your job or your life"

Since we've apparently taken up grading each other's rhetorical choices: I think I would've said that the other way around.

Well excuse me if I like to use a little absurdity to highlight someone's absurd arguments.

No, actually, I won't excuse you, because that's not what you did.

You invented a patently ridiculous argument and ascribed it to me as if I were an utter fool. If you actually think that this -- "Well, when you're taking fire from snipers, I'm sure the first thing that pops into your mind is, 'Man, if we only had some more agricultural trade experts we be able to lick these insurgents'." (and since we're critiquing each other's rhetorical choices, and since grammar is a part of rhetoric, that quotation mark between the word "insurgents" and the period actually belongs on the other side of the period) -- reflects an argument I've actually made or is on any reasonable reading of my argument a reasonable extension thereof, I've been wasting my time trying to have an intelligent discussion with you.

Since you seem too intelligent to actually think that, no, I don't excuse you for intentionally inventing a ridiculous argument and ascribing it to me.

But let's not pretend that my snootiness and general irritability here, or anywhere else for that matter, somehow demonstrates the reasonableness of your position or the cogency of your arguments.

Reasonableness is a somewhat subjective standard, but on the cogency score, at the very least, I'll happily let my arguments stand for themselves; they need no help from your irritability. (My actual arguments, that is. Not your made-up ones.)

I sincerely hope that in the future our FSO's (and soon to be FSO’s) will agree to serve but I think it's going take a great deal of trust in the judgment and demeanor of our NEXT president.

I just think this is not a practicable way to view or handle the foreign service. It effectively puts the FSOs in charge of huge chunks of our national diplomatic policy. Nobody elected FSOs to that role. The job of foreign service officer ought to be to carry out the diplomatic policies set by our elected policymakers, just as the job of a military officer is to carry out the military policies set by our elected policymakers.

Setting policy is the constitutional role of elected officials, even when they are colossal fuck-ups.

Posted by urbino | November 3, 2007 12:38 AM

"What about after the soldiers and Marines have cleared an area of terrorists"

There is no such thing, moron.

All you do is run terrorists from here to there - and when you leave, they come back.

And you HAVE TO LEAVE because you don't have enough troops to put them EVERYWHERE because the rocket scientist you had as Secretary of Defense thought you only needed 130,000 instead of 500,000...and even that wouldn't have been enough after the rest of the stupid decisions the morons you sent over there made.

So now you want to send a bunch of useless diplomats and techies into a war zone - to do WHAT? We already know how useless the ones we HAVE over there are because they've achieved NOTHING of any effect on the situation.

It's just stupid, right wing bullshit denouncing people at State because they didn't support your rocket scientist DoD moron and your rocket scientist President and your war criminal/profiteer Vice President in the run up to the war.

Christ, why does anybody even bother reading this crap from you people? You're not even trolls. Trolls at least have a motivation - fun - and a way to get it. You're just morons.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | November 3, 2007 2:21 AM

"You keep talking as if that's really no different than working in the private sector or working for the Post Office."

Actually, it is the same. As I stated earlier, my previous private sector job required that I enter dangerous environments. Postal carriers often face dangerous situations. If our superiors do nothing to mitigate the danger or actively engage in policies that unnecessarily increase the risk, then we have a right to refuse without fearing the loss of our jobs. They may chose to ask us to serve regardless of our concerns and they may terminate our employment in retribution for our intransigence, but I would argue that the employee has legal and moral standing that the employer will eventually have to recognize and submit to.

Sending unwilling State Department officials to Iraq will be as effective as sending Postal employees. You are free to question their career choices and their desire to serve, but I don't think sending them into an untenable situation that is doomed to fail is no more logical now than it was in 1975.

"But these people did volunteer."

No, they didn't, that's why they are upset. The State Department is changing the rules and now they are being forced to choose between their careers and their lives. You may not have any sympathy or respect for them, but I do. And I think that any impact to future missions this "revolt" may have pales in comparison with the threat of driving the remaining qualified employees (or future employees, for that matter) out of the government.

"Setting policy is the constitutional role of elected officials, even when they are colossal fuck-ups."

And the State Department officials are required to fix an unfixable situation? If the elected officials continue to fuck-up, then when is it all right to say "no, enough"?

Apparently, we've reached a point where the only way we can prop up a failed policy is to force our government employees into a situation that they did not agree to and that will have negligible effect on the outcome. Lucidity is now seen as a character flaw and grounds for dismissal.

Deriding their refusal and/or compelling their service may allow elected officials to enforce their constitutional role but will have little impact the current situation and may cause a level of damage that will require many years and several election cycles to repair. Doing so practically guarantees our inability to respond to the future crises that are likely to occur.

Posted by Rihilism | November 3, 2007 9:24 AM