Most of us have jobs that allow our employers to assign us where we are needed. I know that I could go to school today and find myself transferred without consultation to a different school teaching a different subject, based upon district needs. So why shouldn't diplomats be required to take diplomatic posts that the country needs filled?

Several hundred U.S. diplomats vented anger and frustration Wednesday about the State Department's decision to force foreign service officers to take jobs in Iraq, with some likening it to a "potential death sentence."

In a contentious hour-long "town hall meeting" called to explain the step, these workers peppered the official who signed the order with often hostile complaints about the largest diplomatic call-up since Vietnam. Announced last week, it will require some diplomats — under threat of dismissal — to serve at the embassy in Baghdad and in so-called Provincial Reconstruction Teams in outlying provinces.

Many expressed serious concern about the ethics of sending diplomats against their will to serve in a war zone, where the embassy staff is largely confined to the so-called "Green Zone," and the safety outside the area is uncertain while a review of the department's use of private security contractors to protect its staff is under way.

Cowards.

Sorry, you signed up to serve your country where needed, not to sip tea and munch brie at embassy functions in DC or the tonier capitals of the world. You may not like the thought of going to Iraq, but it is where our country needs you. After all, you are a part of the Foreign SERVICE -- and that is service to the country, not service to one's own ego.

If you don't like the assignments, quit -- see if you can get on at a think-tank, or perhaps even get a job in the private sector.

Posted by: Greg at 10:28 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 323 words, total size 2 kb.