State Department Diplomats Rebel Over Iraq Service

What a bunch of ingrates — this is pathetic. Iraq is far more stable now, it’s as safe as its ever been…if you get sent now, be happy…what if this was 2 years ago?

Curt’s bang on…you signed on the dotted line, now serve. If it was the other way around, these same twits would sue.

Bush and Rice should have fired half the traitors in the State Dept. and CIA years ago.

Send them all to Iraq!

From what I recall, there was no new admin purge of the State Dept., and since most disagree with the objective there, and since most opposition to the war is anti-Admin (and vice versa) it’s perfectly logical, acceptable, and believable to say what the Dems are saying, and tell alls have said for years:

The military has made great progress in Iraq, but the political objectives, national reforms, and non-military efforts to succeed are left wanting. The war cannot be “won” by the military alone, and the people who can-the State Dept, and other non-military aid groups, are not meeting expectations. It’s sad, but then it comes around doesn’t it? Oppose the mission, brag about undermining it, and then-oh wait…ya mean they can’t leave and HAVE to go back until it’s done? Maybe when a DOS guy’s on HIS 3rd or 4th mandatory deployment, then he’ll get the message and get the job done?

Sad.

It has been apparent for decades is the need for something seen by USAF Capt. Keith Laumer, who was also part of the Diplomatic Corps, in his Reteif works. The uproariously funny books gave a hard and fast needling to the US Diplomatic Corps via the CDT. Today we are facing such things with the usual stuffed shirts and old approaches that he made infamous in such stories, and it is only when Retief actually goes out and contacts the locals that situations get resolved.

The problem seen in State Dept. personnel is not a restricted phenomena to *just* State: it is an endemic cultural problem of the bureaucracy in DC. That problem is the Turf War problem that remains obstinately in place even during wartime. This is an outgrowth of the entrenched bureaucracy and its limited ability to relate their jobs to the Nation’s needs. Worse is that during wartime, the very specialities that the Federal Government has in abundance (building design, road design, contract expertise, civil engineering, etc.) is not exercised by the President who is *also* Head of the Government. That Executive decision allows the broad exercise of authority over National necessities and how they affect the actual jobs inside the Government.

Part of that authority is to put in place standards for promotion, and those become a direct part of performance appraisals. If the President wanted to exercise that authority, he very well could on either a direct order basis (as seen with State Dept) or via the promotion process (saying that anyone volunteering for duty in necessary job categories will get a promotion at the end of a full year posting). Notice that the last is not restricted to Iraq, and putting up a Promotion via Labor Category voluntary systems across the Federal Government, would allow the President to find individuals to meet individual job needs wherever the US needed them. The President could also put down that volunteering via application would fully satisfy the ‘other duties as assigned’ portion of the performance appraisal, so that individuals could get that either via the ‘other duties assigned’ to them via work or in demonstrating willingness to step forward in a needed job category.

The flip side of this, and little understood outside of the Federal Government, is that the major department heads inside Agencies are contract Senior Executive (or Intelligence) Service employees. These are one-year term with up to four renewable years contracts with senior government personnel. The SES/SIS system was put in place to give Presidents some leeway in oversight and authority and remove the upper-level entrenchment of the GS-15 civil service employees. As contract personnel the President can do this thing known as: fire them. The SES/SIS has been a plum and relatively cushy job of office management utilizing aforementioned GS-15 personnel for day-to-day operations managment. Any Agency or Department that does not meet the President’s needs can have this senior level of staff *fired* (contract terminated for government convenience)… and I would recommend that ‘firing until competence is found’ is a good way forward and puts the civil service on notice that it will answer for its problems *directly* in the interim to the appointed Agency head.

There is a plethora of job categories the US Federal Government has in abundance and when the Head of the Government directs things to get done, he has the authority to do so and the power to remove the upper echelons to prove that point. The INTEL Community has fiefdom-itis, as well as the rest of the government, and that is restricting the flexibility of the Federal Government via the entrenched outlooks of its personnel. For the sort of shake-up needed you do not need, or even want, a Mitt Romney style executive…. more like a Albert John (Chainsaw Al) Dunlap. We could use one of those to shake up the system… and some Retiefs, too…

These are diplomats? When a diplomat is out for personal gain, it’s best to fire the person. Who knows what these diplomats would do behind the government’s back? They could be gun and drug running, spying for other countries, living the high life in 5 star hotels etc. If they want a cushion job in a specific country, they should have picked some white collar job in some major corporation. Oh wait, the corporation might expect the person to actually do something.

Ahhh, the idiotic troll parade is out….

Thanks sierra…. I found a new Cuckoo clock! Except your chirping 13 times.

Duncan Hunter: Wounded Warriors still seeking to serve:

“…let’s go over to Bethesda and Walter Reed and as we get these new — …these soldiers and Marines who are embarking on new careers, let’s recruit them for the State Department and let’s FIRE THESE GUYS THAT REFUSE TO GO and we’ll give the State Department careers to these military guys”.

Pensivepuppy,

I am an Army officer with (this month) 14 years of service and just returned from Iraq a few months ago.

Your next worthless, asinine “point” is???

So, ChrisG, let’s force others to go to IRAQ too. Like the Bush daughters or Rush Blowhard. If the fat cats on the right had to go to Iraq or send their kids, this thing would be over in two minutes.

Man, you lefties are a pathetic bunch. First you make the chickenhawk argument and demand we go to Iraq before we report on anything dealing on Iraq (unless of course we post something anti-Bush which Im sure you would have no problem with) then when told that one of our authors HAS been to Iraq, and is currently still in the military you change the argument to forcing the Bush daughters to Iraq.

P A T H E T I C

Stop playing with the adults and go back to the KOS playground will ya? We wouldn’t want you to get a headache doing some REAL thinking would we….

So true Chris. It’s purely argumentative-similar to saying if you want law enforcement, or if you believe in the FBI, you have to force you children to go be cops or agents. The difference of course being one of scale where (while FBI agents for example are good people, highly trained, intelligent, and require years of training), serving in the military means is the most sacrifice possible imo.

What concerns me is the desperation of the arguments against the war today. People are still ranting away about the decision to invade 4 years ago, or the rhetoric from 4 years ago. Those debates are almost completely moot today. Or people will run on and on about Republicans wanting to keep the war in Iraq going on indefinitely despite the promise of leading Democratic Presidential nominees to do just that. Or they’ll actually march in the streets, hold press conferences, and so forth demanding that the US start withdrawing forces, meanwhile the order and plan to substantially reduce forces by withdrawal was started months ago.

So why do these people rant away? Why debate the moot? Why point partisan fingers in the face of bi-partisan determination to finish the war to success? Why demand withdrawal when it’s begun?

Is it because the msm isn’t reporting those things? That’s probably a big part of it-at least the first place to look.

Is it because they still don’t understand any of it and continue to believe the misinformation stemming from political leaders who they now KNOW will do and say anything to get elected (see also New Direction in Iraq, Most Ethical Congress ever, New Spirit of bi-partisanship)?

Or (my fear) do many people hear the news, not accept the disinformation anymore, and still rant and rave against the decision to invade etc because of habit; a habit that satisfies their feelings of political alienation by talking tough to power in the aire of talking truth to power?

Oh well, let them rave. Let them whine about the war with this talking point and that, and then let them try to so clearly form excuses to vote for Senator Clinton: who promoted the war, authorized the war, supported the war, funded the war, and will-in her words-keep combat missions going until 2013. Even partisan hacks are rethinking that one now since they’ve come to realize that when the Democratic Party’s leaders talk…it’s just to get them elected; ie, they aren’t really looking out for the little guy anymore-just saying anything to get a vote from demographics.