Comments:American diplomats unwilling to go to Iraq may be forced, says State Department
This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.
Quick hints for new commentators:
- Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
- Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
- You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading
- Forced? Couldn't they quit?
- Yes, of course. But if a person doesn't want to throw away a career, they may be forced to go to Iraq. Diplomatic missions are always filled on a volunteer basis and not done military-style. I could be a copyboy who doesn't want to make photocopies of material I don't like, and I'm either forced to make them, or I can find another job. --David Shankbone 18:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
American Diplomats to Iraq[edit]
If a US diplomat assigned to a job doesn´t like it, couldn´t he(she) quit his(her)job under his(her) contract rules?. I would consult my US lawyer if I was in this situation before making a decision. Jaime Saldarriaga.
- People aren't usually "forced diplomats" - diplomacy is a labor of love. You are going as an ambassador from one nation to another because you want to be a diplomat. Many of these "Can't they just quit" comments don't take into account what the nature of diplomacy is. Which is not "You are forced to go to another country and represent us." More important, the story outlines what a disaster Iraq continues to be, and that there is a lot of people who are seasoned diplomats--versed in the art of diplomacy--who see this mission as too dangerous or too futile. But a diplomat is not a job like any other job. --David Shankbone 19:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Unlike just going to another copyshop, there are not other "State Departments" to go to work for. ;-)
- Exactly. --David Shankbone 19:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Give State the Resources to do This Job[edit]
The Administration and especially Congress have continually not funded and manned State to the levels needed for an area like Iraq. The Foreign Service union AFSA has estimated that an additional 2,094 employees are needed to staff Iraq, Afghanistan, and other positions currently vacant. If the Service is short 2,000 people, it makes it more evident how they are short people. Actually, it makes the 48 people they need look nearly insignificant except that Ambassador Crocker has stated he needs every position filled. Congress must put their backing into the State mission with adequate resources like they have with DOD. Some info derived from John Naland. "AFSANET: Implictions of Directed Assignments: October 30, 2007" — 2007-11-2
Same dilema in the cold war.[edit]
I remember being very bored at school, one day, and reading an article in the Economist magazine in the library, all the good magazines were taken. It was around about 1985, the cold war wasn't over but the Economist claimed that there were more American diplomats based in the Paris Embassy than the Berlin, London and Moscow embassies put together.
American diplomats sound a lot like Church of England vicars. Church of England vicars are supposedly on a calling from God to serve mankind. Church of England vicars can choose, more or less, where they preach in England or abroad. Who in the church would dare to question God’s will? God in his unfathomable wisdom, nearly always calls for the vicars to preach in the wealthier parts of Southern England, usually the home counties and only very occasionally does he find missions for them in poor inner city areas.