When I was reporting from the Middle East in the '80s and early '90s, Western diplomats in certain "hot-spot" countries were often sent home, with only essential personnel remaining to staff the embassy. In times of crisis, Western embassies sometimes closed temporarily. During the first Gulf War, only skeletal staff remained trapped in Kuwait. So the Bush administration's insistence that 48 diplomats be forced to post to Baghdad in the midst of chaos and war seems highly suspect.
It's no wonder US diplomats are protesting. This week 300 diplomats attended a meeting at the state department concerning the "forced assignments" order made by Harry Thomas, state department human resources director. One diplomat referred to an Iraq posting as a "potential death sentence."
Previously Iraq postings were filled on a voluntary basis. If too few volunteer, Thomas said some will be forced to go to Iraq or risk dismissal, other than those exempted for medical or personal hardship reasons. Last Friday, Thomas informed 250 "prime candidates" of their selection for one of 48 one-year postings at the embassy in Baghdad or in a Provincial Reconstruction Team elsewhere in the country. The diplomats were given ten days to respond.
Senior diplomat Jack Croddy, who worked as a political adviser with Nato forces, highlighted safety fears of staff forced to serve in a war zone. "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," Croddy said. "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?
"You know that at any other [country] in the world, the embassy would be closed at this point," Croddy noted. And that's the point. Under these kinds of dangerous circumstances - daily suicide bombings, explosions and sniper killings - the embassy would be closed, or staffed minimally, mostly with US Marine guards. So why is the Bush administration forcing so many diplomats to work in a war zone? They're not trained soldiers; more likely they would become prime targets for kidnappings or worse. Is the Bush administration so completely deluded about the situation on the ground in Iraq that they really imagine American diplomats would be welcome?
honestly, as an american, i am just mortified at the behavior of this administration. and i am not alone. it is horrifying what has happened and continues to happen in iraq and the thought of moving into iran is nauseating. this problem is so huge i can not begin to imagine the facets of a solution.
Posted by: designdna | 02 November 2007 at 17:59
With so few American civilians still in Iraq, I really can't imagine what purpose this would serve - except, horribly, perhaps be used as decoys - they'd just be sitting ducks waiting to be bombed or worse...What a terrible position for the embassy staff to be put in...
Posted by: tinker | 02 November 2007 at 15:38
What is happening to this country?? Why aren't people speaking up more?? What else can he do before he leaves?? Bomb Iran?? I am sick at heart.
Posted by: jzr | 02 November 2007 at 00:35
Well, what stop them to do same things instead of starting war?
Even bad Pease always better then good War.
They didn’t expect that war in Iraq will became open Pandora box… I don’t know what really they expected then – sweet, short and glorious military campaign? At least naïve, most likely simply stupid! I always think how easy to start war and how almost impossible to stop it… Seems to me like it can be another “Chechnya” war – 20 years already and who knows if it ever will end. I just feel sorry for simple people living thru it in Iraq and US too.
Posted by: Elena | 01 November 2007 at 20:56
Very interesting Tara, thanks for informing us. I'll read this to my husband.
Posted by: robyn | 01 November 2007 at 18:50
I didn't know. It's horrible! What can we do?
Posted by: rochambeau | 01 November 2007 at 18:15
The embassy that's being built is huge and costing a horrendous amount. After reading about the diplomats' concerns, I'm left wondering if this whole Iraq "freedom" thing is actually a cover for colonization of that country by the U.S.
Posted by: Colette | 01 November 2007 at 18:02
again...i find these things out here...because i hate news...it so depresses me...i guess we will have a smaller diplomatic core in a few days...praying...blessings, rebecca
Posted by: Cre8Tiva | 01 November 2007 at 18:00
Nothing about that war makes any sense and everything about it seems to be diabolical. And I get that impression even from Republican spin U.S. news, which cannot keep up with the madness of allowing war profiteers to hijack our entire government. It has a frightening life of its own now.
Posted by: fleur | 01 November 2007 at 17:58
I don't think he is deluded I just think he is wicked. Is his saying for Halloween Trick or Cheat?
Posted by: Di Overton | 01 November 2007 at 17:39
I am daily in new disbelief at what this president does and says. Thank you for your insights....
Posted by: stephanie | 01 November 2007 at 17:28
Perhaps because they are idiots, and egotistical enough to never admit defeat in any form. I completely agree with Karen's comment as well.
Posted by: Grace | 01 November 2007 at 16:47
Well - this was Crooks & Liars take on it:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/11/01/hell-no-they-won’t-go/
Posted by: kim | 01 November 2007 at 16:07
Thanks for this insight, Tara. Bewildering at the very least, very likely infuriating for all those directly impacted. He's digging himself deeper with every misguided step, dragging the country along with him, and I really don't think he gives a damn.
Posted by: Karen DeGroot Carter | 01 November 2007 at 15:45
Truely, I don't know!
Posted by: Mary t. | 01 November 2007 at 14:17