Blogs for Bush: The White House Of The Blogosphere: A Foreign Service Officer Gives Some Advice

Caucus of Corruption: The Truth about the New Democratic Majority

ORDER NOW!!!

On Amazon, Barnes & Noble, or The Conservative Book Club

Follow the book on Twitter.

Blogger Reviews.

Matt and Mark's Media Schedule.

« Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!! | Main | Will Obama Surprise in Iowa? »

November 07, 2007

A Foreign Service Officer Gives Some Advice

Given the hand wringing of some FSO's over the prospect of being required to do their job, an FSO in Iraq offers some advice:

I just finished reading a news article discussing some of my FSO colleagues' vehement and emotional response to the idea that a few of us might have directed assignments in Iraq . To my vexed and overwrought colleagues, I say take a deep breath and calm down. I have been here for a while now, and you may have been misinformed about life at a PRT.
I personally dislike the whole idea of forced assignments, but we do have to do our jobs. We signed up to be worldwide available. All of us volunteered for this kind of work and we have enjoyed a pretty sweet lifestyle most of our careers.

I will not repeat what the Marines say when I bring up this subject. I tell them that most FSOs are not wimps and weenies. I will not share this article with them and I hope they do not see it. How could I explain this wailing and gnashing of teeth? I just tried to explain it to one of my PRT members, a reserve LtCol called up to serve in Iraq . She asked me if all FSOs would get the R&R, extra pay etc. and if it was our job to do things like this. When I answered in the affirmative, she just rolled her eyes.

Calling Iraq a death sentence is just way over the top. I volunteered to come here aware of the risks but confident that I will come safely home, as do the vast majority of soldiers and Marines, who have a lot riskier jobs than we FSOs do.

I wrote a post a couple days ago where I said that perhaps everyone's talents are not best employed in Iraq . That is still true. But I find the sentiments expressed by some at the town hall meeting deeply offensive. What are they implying about me and my choice? And what do they say to our colleagues in the military, who left friends and family to come here and do their jobs? As diplomats, part of our work is to foster peace and understanding. We cannot always be assured that we will serve only in places where peace and understanding are already safely established.

In my view, nothing so clearly illustrates the State Department's institutional opposition to American policy as the refusal of FSO's to serve in Iraq - these are men and women who volunteered for this line of work and their job is to serve at the direction of the President and the Secretary of State. If they don't like it, they are free to pursue other career options.

If we Republicans retain the White House next year, job one will be to clear out of the Executive branch all of those bureaucrats who think they have a say in policy making. Some of these people seem to think that they are other than creatures of the executive power of the Presidency of the United States of America. The President is elected to set executive policy - bureaucrats are hired to carry it out, and if they don't like the policy, resignation is the only honorable course of action.

Now, we need good FSO's, just as we need good people at all levels of government - and good people are people who will speak up when they think something is wrong and who will vigorously advise their elected superiors of their views - but good people are also people who know their place in the grand, constitutional scheme of things and that means that their dissent ends at the office door, unless they are permanently on their way out of it.

Posted by Mark Noonan at 03:32 AM | Comments (21) | Track

Comments

To my understanding, 3 FSO's have been killed in Iraq in 5 years. 3!

FIRE THEM!

Posted by: neocon at November 7, 2007 08:07 AM

Why not advocate clearing out those FSOs now ????

After all a Republican is President right now so why wait until next election???

Posted by: neologizer at November 7, 2007 10:20 AM

Sure that would be great public relationship for Bush. You are either with us or against us !!!
Anyone who refuses should be fired immediately on the spot !!
A few should be prosecuted for breaking their oaths !!

Oh and today's Gallup Poll did make it official: he finally beat out Nixon for the bottom position. WORST PRESIDENT EVER !!

Posted by: John Ryan at November 7, 2007 10:32 AM

so why wait until next election???

Neologizer, I suspect it relates to that "new tone" thingy. Hopefully, the next president will have a new, leaner and meaner tone.

Posted by: Retired Spook at November 7, 2007 10:51 AM

I agree neologizer, fire them TODAY.

Foreign Service Officer means just that: Foreign. If you take the job and the beneifts, you accept the assignments. Period.

Posted by: neocon at November 7, 2007 11:04 AM

FSOs are protected by civil service regs and can't be simply fired. However if they refuse an assignment...

Could be a good excuse to get rid of some of the leftists.

Posted by: phnx at November 7, 2007 11:16 AM

I agree. If they don't want to do their job, then they shouldn't have it.

Posted by: Roughridersfan at November 7, 2007 11:40 AM

Actually, there are laws against firing bureaucrats for policy reasons. I am pretty sure that it's the Public Services Act which is the main one that applies. Now, if you want presidents to break existing laws, that's another issue entirely...

Posted by: Rana Quijotesca at November 7, 2007 12:34 PM

Gad Zooks! Do I hear Reagan and air traffic controllers? Fire them, one and all. No wait, take them to Burma and THEN fire them! If I worked for a McDonalds store and my boss said she needed me to work at one of the icky branches in a nasty neighborhood, guess what. Either I work where she needs me or I find another job. Shame on those State Department parisites.

Posted by: Richard of Oregon at November 7, 2007 12:52 PM

Its easy for us to criticize other civilians when we sit on our computers in our nice air-conditioned rooms.

I agree they signed up for a job and should do it.

But being a father/grandfather/husband...I can understand their concern. They are being sent to a war zone (I dont care about that sign that said Mission Accomplished)

I make it go further...
Why not make Condi serve over there for 1yr?

You guys said very glib in sending civilians into a combat zone. I dont exactly see alot of you guys lining up to take their place.

Posted by: stevocar at November 7, 2007 03:45 PM

The vets can have the State Department. All of them should be replaced.

'Planet in Peril:'

'Claudia A. McMurray is the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans, Environment and Science.'

Notice oceans. Artic. 'Planet in Peril' was the original excuse for going after artic land and water.

The US is passing a treaty for Law of the Sea that taxes the artic. The natives own it, but, apparently the UN does now. It's native month and the treaty is about to be signed giving ownership of the land and water to the UN.

The next article was about the 'state of emergency;' needed to seize the artic waters and lands.

Posted by: FR at November 7, 2007 04:47 PM

stevo, they have mercenaries, Marines, and State Department security to guard them. One has been killed in Iraq. During the same time period, several have been killed in other countries.

I think the ones who refuse should be shifted out of State. Either fired or transfered to another Department - at severe reduction in pay grade. Then, offer the jobs to wounded veterans.

Posted by: Kahn at November 7, 2007 08:10 PM

Kahn,
Oh I agree they have good protection. But you are still asking civilians to post to a war zone.

Given the dearth in FOS staffing, I dont see anyone on here volunteering to fill their shoes.
Further, the spots are open. So wounded vets can apply. But they havent. You do know what veterans preference is in civil service right?
There is nothing higher than a combat injured vet. You live up by DC you should know that.

Additionally 3 have been killed in Iraq.

Like I said before...its easy for us to sit here in our air conditioned rooms, tapping away on computers to judge a civilian that doesn't want to go to a war zone.

If its that safe over there (like you suggested in your posting), then rotate Condi over there for a year.

Posted by: stevocar at November 7, 2007 11:42 PM

stevo - what a stupid argument, rotate Condi over there for a year? You don't think she's already a target? The Secretary of State has civilian clothes Marines as body-guards. And thats ALL the time. The only Department Head to get that, I believe. Everyone else gets Secret Service. You see, the State Department is actually not civilians. It is diplomats and Foreign Service Officers. Look THAT up.

As to the wounded military... I'm saying go recruit them.

I have little tolerance for FSO's that shirk their oath. They don't want the job, then quit. That is perfectly acceptable. But to take a job and then refuse to step up to the requirements? To hell with that.

Posted by: Kahn at November 8, 2007 01:30 AM

Given the dearth in FOS staffing, I dont see anyone on here volunteering to fill their shoes.

I'll volunteer. Give me the pay, the pension and the benefits and I will definitely go to Iraq.

Posted by: neocon at November 8, 2007 11:25 AM

Kahn,
Calm down man. Its just a debate.
I suggested that Condi go over because YOU said it was SAFE. That only 1 state department employee had died in 4+yrs.
If it is THAT safe..then rotate her over. Either its safe (like you claimed it is) or it is not.

As for FSO's not being civilians...uhmmmm are they military? Nope. So they are civilians. You can spin it anyway you want. But you are asking unarmed citizens to go to a war zone. Which is easy for YOU to do..because you are sitting fat and happy in your airconditioned house tapping away on a keyboard.

Posted by: stevocar at November 8, 2007 12:33 PM

I'll volunteer. Give me the pay, the pension and the benefits and I will definitely go to Iraq.

Posted by: neocon
----------------------------------------------------
http://careers.state.gov/officer/register.html

There is a test date coming up the first week of Dec.
Let us know how it turns out!

Posted by: stevocar at November 8, 2007 12:36 PM

No test, no app. Just give me the pay and the benefits and I will take the place of the little whiners that currently occupy those cushy government jobs and go to Iraq.

But you are asking unarmed citizens to go to a war zone.

What are you half woman? We're asking FSO employees to fulfill their job description. They become "unarmed citizens" again, if they quit their current job.

Posted by: neocon at November 8, 2007 02:26 PM

Notice how the fact that people are emotional is some kind of target, claiming the one who is emotional has less credibility. It's bogus. Psychopathic Personalities lash out at emotions because they are afraid of them. Psychopaths are afraid of emotions because they do not understand them, because of they have poor emotional response, a defect, and they have very little emotions themselves. They are afraid of what they don't understand.

Posted by: USA at November 8, 2007 05:44 PM

No test, no app. Just give me the pay and the benefits....

Posted by: neocon
-----------------------------------------------------
Yeah I kinda figured you would say that. Looking for a government handout.

Cant even be bothered to take a little ol' test.

Like i said before: It's easy for YOU to tell an unarmed US Citizen to go to Iraq...while you sit on your rather large butt tapping away on a keyboard in your airconditioned house.

You are so lazy you cant even be bothered taking a test to get the job.

hahahahahhaahahhaahahahahahah!

What are you on welfare?

Posted by: stevocar at November 8, 2007 08:04 PM

I've quoted you and linked to you here: http://consul-at-arms.blogspot.com/2007/11/re-foreign-service-officer-gives-some.html

Posted by: Consul-At-Arms at November 10, 2007 02:22 AM