A non-WoW rant - safe to read, safer to pass on by
Posted by: bigbearbutt in UncategorizedThis doesn’t have anything to do with World of Warcraft. Please, if you are here to read about WoW, and are NOT interested in American government, or my opinion of it, then pass this one by.
If you do read this, at least know up front this isn’t going to be about democrats or republicans or presidential races or any of that stuff. However, it DOES concern the State Department, and our diplomats’ attitudes towards serving in Iraq. Notice I said diplomat, not politician.
If you’d prefer, just wait a little bit, let me get this off my chest, and I’ll have a much larger in-depth post on Druid Idols to inform and entertain with later this morning! Okay?
I woke up this morning pretty happy…. until I opened up my Yahoo news. Hey, I always check the news in the morning. You never know, a meteor might have struck Paris. (Nope, still nothing).
What do my eyes spy, but the lovely little headline, “Iraq assignments upset some diplomats“.
Now, that title intrigued me. It was a grabber, as intended. My imagination naturally took over. What assignments? How upset? Upset at what? Are diplomats upset at orders they’ve been given as to how to represent American interests to Iraq? Are they upset at having to be nice to the Iraqi government while American troops continue to work hard at great risk of life and limb in the region? Maybe they are upset at driving forward the goals of a President or Congress which they might not agree with.
So I read the article. It would have been more amusing to move on, speculating about the news without actually finding out more, but what can I say? I’m just the kind of guy that wants to know more.
I do always try to keep in mind that there was a real person out there on deadline, trying to make money, that wrote this article, so the facts presented may be correct, exaggerated, only part of the truth, or completely fabricated. So I’ll read the opinions and slant with a cynical eye, but I’ll be paying close attention to what someone is actually quoted as saying, in public, that can be easily verified. In this, I share many of the same opinions about news agencies that John Ringo seems to hold when you read his books or articles.
The gist of this article was that a large number of Foreign Service diplomats working for the State Department, presumably flunkies, were outraged that they MAY be ordered to serve at the American Embassy in Iraq.
They had an ‘hour long’ town hall meeting with Foreign Service Director General Harry Thomas specifically to talk about it.
Okay, the first thought I have, skimming over the inflammatory sections… what are they being told to DO, exactly?
It looks to me like the Foreign Service diplomatic core was informed last week that, IF enough of them did not volunteer to fill diplomatic posts that would soon open in the American Embassy to Iraq, located in Baghdad, that SOME of them would be ordered to go to fill those vacant posts and get the job done. The alternative wold be for the State Department to leave these diplomatic positions empty. In the American Embassy in Iraq. During a war. WTF?
Okay, the concept of hardship posts are certainly not knew. Are there special forms of compensation for diplomats if you volunteer? Why, yes there are. To quote the article, volunteers to serve in the Embassy in Iraq receive “extra hardship pay, vacation time and choice of future assignments”.
Well shoot, will those ordered to go to fill those vacancies also get those incentives? Cause that might be why they’re pissed. Well, apparently, yes. Yes they will receive the same compensations that the volunteers do. (And if I were a volunteer, that would royally piss me off.)
Well, is the mission important? I don’t know, let’s think about that one. To quote State Department spokesman Sean McCormack, “Ultimately, our mission in Iraq is national policy, it is the foreign policy set out by the secretary as well as the president of the United States.”
Now, the last I had heard, there are a lot of American service men and women serving in Iraq. Right now. Working hard to achieve objectives supposedly developed by our government while working closely together with the Iraqi government.
I would personally say that I cannot imagine, at this one moment in time, a more important place for an American Foreign Service diplomat to be stationed during this time of crisis. And make no mistake, when American service men and women are fighting a war in a foreign land, I define that as a ‘time of crisis’.
So far, in reading over the article, I have yet to find any valid reason why the Foreign Service diplomats are so upset about maybe being ordered to go that a town hall meeting had to be held. So maybe the reasons aren’t factual, but emotional. So now I focus in on what, specifically, was said.
Jack Croddy, a ’senior foreign service officer’, confronted Foreign Service Director General Harry Thomas in the meeting, and said, “It’s one thing if someone believes in what’s going on over there and volunteers, but it’s another thing to send someone over there on a forced assignment. I’m sorry, but basically that’s a potential death sentence and you know it. Who will raise our children if we are dead or seriously wounded?”
To further quote the article, “Croddy’s remarks were met with loud and sustained applause from the approximately 300 diplomats at the meeting.”
Wow. Okay, damn, I had no idea that the Foreign Service was in such danger, and had suffered casualties. Now I feel bad. After all, our American service men and women are also suffering terrible casualties every damn day, why would I think the diplomats were immune to this? I guess I had believed from my own experiences that Foreign Service diplomats were isolated to an Embassy compound, under the direct security of the U.S. Marine Corps, when stationed in hazardous postings.
And then I read further, and I saw, “No U.S. diplomats have been killed in Iraq, although the security situation is precarious.”
I just can’t help but think about this whole situation. The State Department is seeking volunteers from within it’s ranks to fill vacant posts within the American Embassy to Iraq, as well as posts to work in outlying areas of Iraq to try and rebuild the infrastructure and establish a lasting framework for some kind of peace. To try and fill these vacancies in what is arguably the most important foreign post in our time of crisis, the State Department is offering various incentives to make the posting more attractive. They still haven’t received enough volunteers, so they announced that if necessary they would order diplomats to the posts, under threat of dismissal from Foreign Service if they refused.
And the response from the majority of the diplomatic core, given under rousing applause, was the impassioned, emotional plea, “I’m sorry, but basically that’s a potential death sentence and you know it. Who will raise our children if we are dead or seriously wounded?”
That’s it. That’s it? And they are under threat of dismissal, not court martial charges if they don’t go? Well, are they just employees? Is it just a job?
Oh, wait, no, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack had stressed that all diplomats sign an oath to serve, obligating them to be available to work anywhere.
So here’s my damn spin on this. It’s not just that these worthless bastards are cowards, they are also preparing to be oathbreakers. They apparently want to serve America, as long as serving means going where they want, doing what they want, and accumulating personal power, wealth and prestige. Damn their oaths, and damn the needs of the country in a time of war.
Hey, that attitude on their part does not come as a shock to me, nor does it change my opinion of any politician or diplomat anywhere. It certainly does not surprise me, and I’m far too cynical to get outraged at mere confirmation that a part of my own beliefs are shown to be true.
But if they were out for themselves, they never should have signed an oath to serve. If the State Department is nice enough to give them the choice to either serve as they swore to do, or QUIT and be unemployed, then fine, they should shut up and make their choice.
But how DARE they imply that their importance to their families is somehow MORE VALUABLE than the lives of ANY serving service man or woman is to THIER family? how DARE they? “Who will raise our children if we are dead or seriously wounded?” HOW FUCKING DARE THEY????
That question is JUST as valid for every single citizen of the United States of America, whether in the military or not, who is serving in ANY hazardous environment in fulfillment of their duty. And yet, whether you agree with the decision to send them there or not, THEY WENT. And they are performing their duties to the best of their abilities, and they don’t get to look forward to special compensations. If those worthless Foreign Service pricks seriously think that they are the first ones to worry what will happen to their families if something happens to them, then they are bat shit INSANE!
This just reeks of the attitude that “We are better than the rabble, and our families are more important that theirs, and we deserve consideration and special treatment and they don’t. We should be allowed to keep our positions, without threat of dismissal, should we be asked to do anything we don’t like. Our wants, needs and desires come first, and our service to this nation, and faithfulness to our oaths, comes dead last.”
There ya go. That there is my rant. I really apologise if you read this far and hoped for some insight, some witty statement or something. I’m fresh out. But I started this really pissed, and now I’m all calm and happy again. Now, to go get back to work, and try and get into the right frame of mind to write a happy WoW related blog post. I know I gots’ me one in there somewheres.
Sigh.
Entries (RSS)
November 1st, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Let it out man, we’re here to listen!
I started writing out a long-winded rant in agreeance with you, but in the middle of it, 2 words sprang to mind that seemed to sum it all up:
Pretentious @*#&suckers.
And anyone else commenting on this issue, please, do as BBB did and leave the Republican/Democrat, should be there/shouldn’t be there out of it.
November 1st, 2007 at 3:30 pm
/applaud
We’re on the same wavelength here, BBB.
Let me present an alternative to those cowardly leeches (leeches, because you and I pay the salaries of those unfit and ungrateful scum).
My son spent 4 years in the US Army, rising to the rank of captain. He was fortunate not to be deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan while he was in the Army.
When he decided he didn’t want to be a career Army officer (a decision I fully supported, even though I’m a retired Air Force officer), he went to work for General Dynamics Corp. as a computer network engineer. His job is to support US Central Command; his office is under contract to the Department of Defense.
As part of his job, he has gone to the Middle East for 90 days (Jan - Mar) each of the last 3 years, and was scheduled to go again in January 2008. He has been promoted to a salaried, supervisory position, yet he still was going to be sent to Qatar (granted, not Baghdad, but he’s been there, too) again.
His daughter turned 3 in September. So he’d spent a full quarter of her young life away from her, missing a LOT of her growing up to this point. He was not at all enamored of the prospect of missing her (and his wife, of course) for another 3 months right after Christmas.
Instead, he is changing jobs, and will be starting a new position with Microsoft Corp. in late November.
This decision had nothing to do with his political views or his views of the war. It had everything with his personal desire (fueled by the desires of his family as well) not to return to a war zone again.
In other words, he made the simple decision to stop working for the employer who was sending him to the Middle East. Those Foreign Service employees can make the same decision at any time.
Unlike military members, they can resign rather than be reassigned. (While joining the US Armed Forces is purely voluntary, leaving the Armed Forces is not quite so voluntary.)
Oh, and one other point: If the conscience of some of these people dictate to them that the war is immoral, illegal, or otherwise goes against their personal convictions, their ONLY option is to resign. Otherwise, they are violating their oath to “…support and defend the Constitution of the United States…[and to] bear true faith and allegiance to the same…”
Hypocrites.
November 1st, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Rant away. I understand your thoughts, and agree with them. Was going to say something similar to Kestrel, but he’s more eloquent than I could have been. Resign, or deal with it. *sigh*
November 1st, 2007 at 5:38 pm
/agreed
I think there are too many people who signs up for a job without seriously looking at all the liability and hardship that job potential can bring upon them. My thinking is much like Kestrel in that unlike the Military, a civilian career allows you the ultimate ability to resign your post if you do not agree with your assignment and can’t negotiate your posting. That’s the luxury we civilians have that people who joined the military do not have.
November 1st, 2007 at 5:51 pm
Ah Kestrel, you are so much more eloquent than I.
Very nice, my friend.
I am surprised so many of you read so far and wanted to comment. On the otehr hand, I’m still not all ‘nice and ahppy, cause a friend of mine walked into my office and asked me what I had written today. And by the end of it, I was ranting again.
Sigh.
I wish your son the best of his life with his family. I am sure it was a very difficult decision, and I certainly hope he never believes he has cause to regret changing companies.
November 1st, 2007 at 9:27 pm
For my part, I’m mixed.
Let’s start with the errors in perception and information. First, there’s the “no diplomats have died” line. True - but that’s like saying “no generals have died in Iraq”. There have been FS personnel and other US government staff killed. The rate is lower than that of the army and marines (and air force doing convoy work), but it’s a heck of a lot higher than “nothing”. And just like the military, the rate of injury from willful attack is significantly higher. Oh - and when you compare the rate to fobbits and greenies, the rate’s comparable to military rates of death and injury.
Second error is one of perception - and I admit I used to have similar till I sat on both sides of the fence. Reread the article. Nowhere do they say [paraphrased], “it’s good enough for the soldiers but not for us.” What they say is, “sending people to a warzone is hard on families.” Yep, “mine” is in there - the ancient human reality that “me” matters more to me than “them”. So? I listened to a lot of similar phrases from military families, too.
Then let’s add the habits of news media these days. Given several hundred people over at least an hour plus the desire of news media to look for the most, um, NEWS-worthy quotes, I have to admit I also am suspicious as to how many of the FSOs really agree with the quotes and lines I see in every single paper - the one about “tantamount to a death sentence” being met by “thunderous applause” is highly suspect, to put it bluntly.
As I said, though, I’m mixed. I mean, sure, on the one hand I can see that if they wanted to be put in harm’s way they’d have signed up for a duty that tended to do this. On the other hand, Foreign Service tends to send you to places which are less than healthy and peaceful — some of which are at least as much a warzone as Iraq. (Darfur, Sudan, anyone?) It’s not like they signed up for something peaceful like the FBI, is it? (sarcasm)
For what it’s worth, I have read enough to suspect that the headlines are just a touch misleading. In a couple of articles I read there were indications at least part of the issue dealt with inequitable treatment and possible violation of regulations on the part of senior department personnel.
Given all this… I understand, sympathize with, and even partially agree with your disgust. But I’m convinced there’s more to the story, and this makes me withhold judgement.
November 1st, 2007 at 9:32 pm
I respect your opinion on the normal Bear and WoW issues you discuss, and now I respect you as a person. Sometimes the only reaction possible is a rant. People like this do not deserve to serve our country and should resign if they cannot be loyal to the oaths they swore. I couldn’t agree with you and Kestrel more.
November 1st, 2007 at 9:41 pm
re: Kirk
Fair enough, the media and its unspoken bias towards the interesting over the boring is always reason to take news articles with a grain of salt. But BBB’s point still stands I think, any of those diplomats that are refusing to go due to personal issues with the war or family concerns should have considered fully what they were giving their oath to do. If they go and put the time into this country they could help turn the conflict there around. How many lives is that worth? If they can’t put that possibility and their oath first, then they are in the wrong line of work.
November 1st, 2007 at 10:50 pm
Leukos…
any of those diplomats that are refusing to go due to personal issues with the war or family concerns should have considered fully what they were giving their oath to do.
nitpick first - not diplomats as already discussed. More important point second - how do you consider the black swan? The last time there was an involuntary assignment of foreign service personnel to a hazardous duty assignment was during the VietNam war. Since then there have been some MAJOR changes in regulations — not least one that only allows this in “emergencies.” (And both by law and regulation a wartime status is not an emergency in this case. Maybe.)
If they go and put the time into this country they could help turn the conflict there around.
Ummm. maybe. I think full discussion of this does not belong on Bear’s WoW blog. But the simple sum of my position is: too little, too late. I’m going to point out that according to the Christian Science Monitor the interesting FS requirement MISSING from the assignment qualifications is the ‘language of nation’ foreign language qualification. Not even level 1 is required, nor will it be part of pre-deployment (or mandatory during deployment) training. I submit that this raises the question of how relevant it is that FS personnel be deployed here.
By the way, I could bore you (or anger you) by counting how many times I sat through officers and enlisted raising questions of who’d take care of their families when they deployed - pretty much the same questions asked in the articles. The questions are human nature and resolving them is rather critical for effective deployment - and if you were lucky enough not to be part of the deployment prep team for training or combat, I almost envy you. Oh, I think I need to raise one interesting factoid I stumbled across that may bring this into slightly better focus - why the family questions are so critical to these folk.
If you are an FS employee and you are assigned somewhere, your family is expected to deploy with you. There are no quarters or BEQ/BOQ for your family while separated, no separation allowances, none of that. There are a few exceptions on the books - deployment into a war zone being one. Once more I’m going to point to a frustrating legality, however: Iraq is not a war zone.
Fair balance here - the typical FSP earns an income in line with an E6/E7 of a decade’s less experience, and an FSO that of an officer of equivalent time in service. And it’s not MANDATORY that the family deploys as well. It’s just that unlike the military with its numerous mechanisms to support the family while the soldier is deployed, there is no support mechanism, financial or any other, for those families.
A blind absolute of “they’re wrong” based solely on what we know now is too simplistic. Especially when we know some of the countervailing issues. At my gut level I think they’re more wrong than right, but I already know there are reasons to suspect my gut’s wrong.
November 1st, 2007 at 11:31 pm
Kirk, as always I highly value your opinion, and I believe you are right on many levels. When I wrote my post, I was highly angry. Outraged would not be putting it too strongly. And as such, I stand by everything that I said.
Whether I am right or wrong in my feelings on this subject, well, I think I can live with what I wrote, because I still feel that I am ‘right’.. for a given value of right :).
What I felt at the time, which I am SURE I didn’t get across properly due to not being as eloquent as you or some others, is that the statement made by Croddy, in my interpretation, implied strongly that he was offended that the State Department would dare to expect him to fulfill his oath of service by going into harms way, at the risk of losing his job should he refuse, based on the needs of his family should anything happen to him.
Now, that only tells me what he said, and is not representative of the feelings of other attendees of the meeting as a whole.
However, the statement that “Croddy’s remarks were met with loud and sustained applause from the approximately 300 diplomats at the meeting.” leads me to believe that his feelings ARE shared, strongly, by his fellow diplomats.
It is on that basis that my emotional outrage was triggered.
Now, is there more to the story? Of course. I did not mention any parts of the story where some people raised concerns over the level of treatment and care afforded to wounded diplomats. I think anyone who has ever had much experience with the VA can attest that, for all of it’s virtues, such programs can also have some serious red tape.
As Heinlein called it, the ‘quartermaster’ and the ‘fairy godmother’ departments. A million quartermasters will tell you in detail why the rules say you should be denied care… and the one sole little fairy godmother will see those rules… and find a way to legally meet the SPIRIT of the organization to get you the care you need.
Is there a great deal to this that was downplayed in order to outrage people like me and drive pagehits? I’m damn sure there are. But the facts of what Croddy said are what I felt in my heart, and it royally pissed me off.
If this were a political blog, I would have sat on the story for several hours, checking sources and calling for interviews and details before making a post. As this is my personal blog for WoW, and my tagline includes “Cranky opinions….. and everything”, I felt better after getting it out, inaccuracies or unfairness, warts and all. I stand by every word, and only wish I could articulate myself better.
One last thing, my friends…. an acting Serviceman (branch of service not mentioned) who is in Iraq at the moment, named Scott, was good enough to email me and point out that I had implied that servicemen did not get benefits or compensation for being in hazardous environments.
I am sorry, that was another example of my poor phrasing. I am aware that those serving in hazardous environments receive pay and benefits of varying degrees depending on what type of hazardous duty they are performing… I should, I got some myself once upon a time
My point was SUPPOSED to be that servicemen are provided compensation for the things they are sent to do, NOT bribes or incentives. Sure, there are going to be some people that want to get their golden wings for the hazard pay, but for the most part, I think people go in for the challenge, and the drive to be your best and overcome all obstacles in your way.
The benefits and compesation the diplomats are offered are meant as incentives… bribes, to be crass and unfair, to try and entice them to serve in the post. If I had expressed myself better, I would have said that service personnel are not given a choice whether they are being sent into harms way. Not only are the diplomats given the choice of going or quitting, they are being enticed with bribes to try and encourage them to perform these necessary tasks.
Really one last thing… I absolutely agree, Kirk, that there are few ‘glory’ jobs in the Foreign Service,a nd amny many dangerous ones… although Dick Marcinko seemed to find ways to have fun.
On the other hand…. neither are there any glory postings in the Peace Corps… and I respectively submit that if the Foreign Service needs to find a group with a massive set of balls to give them an example of what courage and hard work in the service of others looks like, and they refuse to take that example from military servicemen, then they can go look at the Peace Corps.
Sometimes, the actions of an individual or a group sounds eminently reasonable… until you see them in the harsh light of day.
Ah, I love to debate, even when I’m probably wrong. Such is life.
Thanks for writing, all of you… now go read the posts that actually have to do with WoW, darn it!