Foreign Service Officers' "revolt"

[brianhos]

Well folks, gotta disagree with you here. If my employer told me I had to go to Iraq for a while to do my job. I would grab the closest box, and say thanks, you can forward my final check to my home address, see ya!

No way I am putting myself in harms way, that is what the millitary is for. I almost joined when I was younger, but that time has passed.

[iceclone]

The main mission of the state department is to issue visas and help Americans abroad. Another mission is to provide services for a variety of agencies overseas the biggest being the military but also library of congress, FBI, department of homeland security, USAID, and about 60 others.

First of all, thanks for posting your brother's perspective. The part I quoted does again raise the following question. Are the current mission of the State Department and the current foreign policy misaligned? That seems to me to be the case. If you agree with that, then what should be done? Change the foreign policy? Change the mission of the State Department? Cut the State Department out of foreign policy and hand it to the DoD?

Also, to make it a bit more specific: Given the current foreign policy, should the administration have been more aggressive in changing the mission and culture of the State Department?

[alaskaguy]

State has had plenty of opportunity to "get in the game". The State Department is riddled, however with a bunch of folks who think they have a right to a job. And the problem isn't FSOs, necessarily. My office is filled with FSOs, in fact, who are preparing to go downrange, many for the umpteenth time.

The State Department people who are whining are trying to pursue a career without doing Uncle Sam's bidding. A soldier can always ETS and leave the Army AFTER his/her obligation is over. But a soldier who wants a career has to go to where he/she is assigned. The State Department people who are whining, want the career, without the discomfort of actually doing foreign service. They need to be fired, immediately, and with some kind of black mark that follows them throughout their lives. (Kind of like a Bad Conduct Discharge.)

Frankly, the State Department has become an obstacle. Their collective political beliefs have led to foot-dragging and obstructionism since 9/11. But their inefficiency and uselessness predates that by a long time.

And the response to your message from my FSO brother....

I agree that there are state people who want only to live in europe. But why should we blame them? None-the-less all state people say they will go anywhere when they apply and those that won't yes, should be fired. I do hedge a bit on being sent to a war zone though, it is a civilian agency risking your life for a low paid job is certainly not what people signed up for. I do know many state people that have spent their entire careers in Europe. What I want to know is how did they do it?

A black mark that follows them? Again, confused with the military. Why do some folk insist on applying military values to the state department? Should the black mark follow all government employees that are fired for the rest of their lives or should this also be expanded to the private sector?

What is the collective political belief of the state department? Sorry there is no such thing. The state department has as many opinions as any equal size group of people. they do of course follow the lead of Condi who I agree should be fired.

[herbiedoobie]

Incoming mortars? I think I just wet my panties....

Your brother doesn't have a clue as to what role State, and other non-military folks have in the "Small Wars" fight. We have FSOs come through here, all the time, for training purposes, prior to heading to Iraq. We had "green-suiters" filling in for various OGAs, including State as recently as last year, in Iraq. Is your brother saying that there isn't a mission for State in Iraq?

Tell your brother that it's the life he chose. Danger Zone pay would be nice for State types, but that's irrelevant to the argument. The Diplomatic Service AND the State Department have a long tradition of dangerous, forbidding assignments that go unappreciated. Of course he and his ilk are too "precious" to be in a war zone, so maybe he can get a "safer" job and take his whining elsewhere.

I appreciate the service that the "brave" members of the Foreign Service do. (As opposed to the self-centered cowards who apparently compose the 88% who think it's too "dangerous" for them) I've met some, and like the heck out of them. They would be the 12% at State that still understand that it isn't all about them.

[herbiedoobie]

Well folks, gotta disagree with you here. If my employer told me I had to go to Iraq for a while to do my job. I would grab the closest box, and say thanks, you can forward my final check to my home address, see ya!

No way I am putting myself in harms way, that is what the millitary is for. I almost joined when I was younger, but that time has passed.

This is the correct attitude that DoS employees who do not want to be deployed should take. And I don't have a problem with it.

[herbiedoobie]

And the response to your message from my FSO brother....

I agree that there are state people who want only to live in europe. But why should we blame them? None-the-less all state people say they will go anywhere when they apply and those that won't yes, should be fired. I do hedge a bit on being sent to a war zone though, it is a civilian agency risking your life for a low paid job is certainly not what people signed up for. I do know many state people that have spent their entire careers in Europe. What I want to know is how did they do it?

A black mark that follows them? Again, confused with the military. Why do some folk insist on applying military values to the state department? Should the black mark follow all government employees that are fired for the rest of their lives or should this also be expanded to the private sector?

What is the collective political belief of the state department? Sorry there is no such thing. The state department has as many opinions as any equal size group of people. they do of course follow the lead of Condi who I agree should be fired.

It's not "military values". It's called "our nation is at war, and DoS types have been sucking at the public teat long enough." Now it's their turn to serve.

If the State Department got rid of 2/3ds of it's stateside bumpf-pushers, I'd adopt a different attitude.

Again, State has a great history of service and sacrifice. That's what being a "public servant" is supposed to be about.

[alaskaguy]

It's not "military values". It's called "our nation is at war, and DoS types have been sucking at the public teat long enough." Now it's their turn to serve.

If the State Department got rid of 2/3ds of it's stateside bumpf-pushers, I'd adopt a different attitude.

Again, State has a great history of service and sacrifice. That's what being a "public servant" is supposed to be about.

Herbie as you can see I'm sharing your responses with my FSO brother. And his response to your post follows:

Of course I think state has a role in Iraq. If Herbie claims otherwise, he apparently doesn't believe in diplomacy. Herbie says they are an obstruction to diplomacy and then says they don't do enough, which is it? As for me, I've been to Iraq (short term) and would go again, I am not whining. I work with lots of military and many of them complain about pretty much everything but I certainly don't condemn the entire military because of them. Although state pulls more than their share in Iraq (documented) it doesn't make sense to send 100's of folks into a war zone. Ask the Diplomatic security agents that were killed by mortars in the parking lot of the green zone and their families if it made sense to them.

No idea where he got the 88% to dangerous for them numbers but they certainly aren't accurate. I work for diplomatic security and pretty much everyone will eventually cycle through Iraq eventually.

Herbie really has it out for the state department even though they serve in a higher percentage than the military. The department of state is already sending most of their budget to Iraq jeperdizing the safety of embassies around the world. What about the IRS maybe they should go to Iraq, what about the USDA, or maybe we should send the department of the interior? Hey lets just send people we are in a war after all. why should just the military branch of the government risk their lives/

[alaskaguy]

Herbie you have captured my brothers attention.....

The State Department serves in Iraq in higher percentages than the military but our friend thinks they aren't doing their share.

He is entitled to his opinion. I'm certain that the vast majority of Americans would voice the same opinion in that they don't want to go to Iraq. in fact the vast majority don't think any Americans should be in Iraq.

They are entitled to quit at any time without retrobution. Although he thinks they should get some kind of black mark forever unlike any other agency.

Thus far after 4 years no measures have been required to fill State Department Iraq positions. Most positions have more than enough volunteers. It is possible that there will be a few directed assignments this bidding cycle. This is not true of the military, most of their assignments are directed. Unlike the State department many in the military have quit and they have shortages of people in many areas as people don't want to go to Iraq. The military is giving bonuses of an entire years salary to sign up and go to Iraq. The State Department gets no bonus at all.

[herbiedoobie]

And that is a State Department problem. Like I said, I like the FSOs I've met. And in percentages, you're talking Pandas versus Mosquitos. DoS = Pandas, DoD = Mosquitos. Of course, overall percentages deployed is going to be higher. And because DoS goes to a lot smaller places, often under-supported by kinetic forces (again, a DoS problem) there are more FSOs killed than soldiers. The problem is the disconnect between the overpaid, underworked do-gooders who administer DoS in the US and some of the more "plum" assignments and the FSOs who go out on "the end of the spear". I bet your brother hates their collective guts as much as I do, if not more.

And I do NOT believe that DoS should get a black mark for quitting, "unlike any other agency", I believe that we should realign other alleged "public service" to be more similar to the military. That means they sign up for an X year commitment, and failure to fulfill that commitment results in action taken against them. Perhaps then, they would act more like "public servants" and less like "public masters". Or maybe we should do away with military "tours" entirely. See my thread on the "all-contract military".

And soldiers don't "quit". They contract for a term of service, and at the end of that term, they can apply to be released. And not all soldiers are being released, either. If a soldier "quits", he goes to prison and has a black mark the rest of his life. I think iceclone makes a great point. I've been dealing with DoS FSOs and former FSOs for the last three weeks, as the Army tries to synchronize it's efforts with them in Iraq. One of our FSOs is a three termer female and she's a hard-charger who understands the importance of the OGA (Other Government Agencies) in Iraq. The Army can't win this "war". OGA will win the "war", if we win at all.