Duncan Hunter should be our next President of the United States.

Career diplomats and staff at State have been too spoiled for too long--even compared to other departments. They've earned a reputation over decades for feeling entitled and that they don't have to answer to the Secretary or the President. It's time they grew up and remember who they work for.

I wonder who will lead the exodus out of DC when Rice makes it mandatory for the dips to go to Iraq? They will probably need to close down the main street so they can get a head start on running for home. These people are not going to risk their lives for this war. Bush should go to Iraq and share an office with Maliaki for the next 15 months and maybe the dips will all follow him. Yeah, right! That cowboy ain't gitten nowhere near those big boom, boom bombs! He might be crazee but he ain't stoopid! Let the poor folks go and let them eat cake!

Anyone who calls them self a Republican these days are sick sick sick.

Sent the entire Congress.

There are many young men that joined the National Guard, never thinking they'd be sent to a foreign war, but it was in the deal they agreed to when they signed on. Likewise, Foreign Service personnel signed up, agreeing to go to "foreign" places - not all of them friendly or safe and not necessarily places of their choice. Same difference, except one gets to simply quit while the other risks military jail for refusal to go.

Well, I am sure that when they "signed on" (just like many of our brave soldiers) they had no idea that we would be in the situation we are today. I suppose they should be "required" to go as assigned or quit. Personally, it must be really "scary" to be in their position considering the lack of knowledge and foreign relation skill of our present "leader". I don't know about anyone else, but I didn't see it coming and I voted for the jerk the first time around. (Oops!) Actually, I think if they don't want to go they should quit. Then write novel about how they feel and how things are from their prespective in the government. Personally, writing a "tell-all" book is much better than risking your life for something you do not believe in. (Like "diplomacy" is really gonna "fix" the problem with Iraq. That's still part of GW's way of thinking and it sure has worked so far. NOT!)

Gee, you mean that the oath that the swore doesn't county anymore. I guess it isn't fashionable anymore to keep your promises so these 'spoiled brat whiners' should be not held to their word. Punks! Be men and do your duty. Grunts have been doing it for years and I guarantee you that they face death everyday. To quote a recent movie that the Clintonistas have kept from distribution---'Are there no men left in Washington?'.

Duncan while being a former American serviceman who bravely served this country is obviously misguided. Bush or his cronies must have had a negative affect on Duncan. Hopefully he'll wake up and see the evil of the Bush criminal enterprise. Too many have suffered due to Bush and his incompetents.

Bluff and bluster Hunter.
He has no idea of what members of the Foreign Service have suffered. Who died when those embassies in Tanzania and Kenya were blown up by Al Quaeda? Congressmen? Were Congressmen the ones who were almost captured when terrorists invaded the US Consulate in Jiddah? Anything to make a political point, eh Congressman? And who is the easiest to bash? Government employees. From a diplomat and proud of it!

Republicans should put their lives on the line if they want us to. Why should they be allowed to stay safe while the middle class are the ones who are dieing and putting our lives on the line. The truth always was that the MIDDLE CALSS are the back bone of U.S.A. and always will be, not someone "spoonfed since birth with a SILVER SPOON". A saying the young yuppie larva never heard of.

In all wars, the diplomats are evacuated
when the shooting starts. Why should
it be any different in the Iraq War?

I hope Hunter does not embrass himself
by asking our wounded vets if they
would like to go back to Iraq.
The most charitable response is why
they tell him what he can do with
his request.

What do these diplomats earn working for the government? Maybe Rice should offer to pay them a war zone bonus, like the high income they pay for the Blackwater contractors (whose owners / attorneys illegally claim to be independent contractors to avoid deducting social security taxes, etc from their employees paychecks).
I wonder how many will go on disablity or opt for unemployment compensation?
I hear it gets real hot over there and electricity for the the air conditioning is not very
reliable.
lol

I believe that this situation points out the difference between bureaucrats and citizens who serve their country. FSO’s knew when they signed up that their profession was a global profession on the front lines in often dangerous places. Those who think it is just another Washington DC bureaucratic job that you commute to from somewhere along the beltway are the ones with the “deer caught in the headlights” look in their eyes now. They need to admit that they don’t have what it takes (or what they pledged) and find another profession.

What Duncan Hunter fails to realize is that Foreign Service Officers are NOT Military Officers. Yes, Foreign Service Officers signed-on for worldwide service. And all should realize that at some point in their careers they may be called upon to serve in areas where the risks to life may be great. However, Foreign Service Officers have traditionally been “authorized” or “ordered” from posts of assignment once their posts were on the verge of becoming war zones. The traditional reaction by State Department leadership was to get Foreign Service Officers out before the security situation in country X could deteriorate to a point that the lives of Foreign Service Officers were in jeopardy or the situation in Country X had become so dire as to negate any benefit from staying. The two exceptions to this practice are Iraq and Vietnam. The common thread between these two is the inability of the State Department leadership to make a reasonable and sensible decision to remove Foreign Service Officers from a war zone.

Why?

Because the White House in both cases refused to allow Foreign Service Officers to leave for fear of the negative public image it would generate. By keeping Foreign Service Officers in place and deploying more the White House can better manage the illusion of US commitment. When in reality Foreign Service Officers assigned to war zones have no capacity to adequately do their jobs. Sure, you can put an embassy there with a flag up! But what measurable accomplishments are being achieved by the Foreign Service Officers inside therein?

Duncan Hunter wants to portray those Foreign Service Officers who are opposed to forced assignments as being unpatriotic cowards. I am sure all his admiring armchair warriors back in El Cajon, California love it! But, let’s be honest. Isn’t really easy to say you “support the war” when it’s not your ass that has to go into harms way? This debate is not about supporting or not supporting the war! It’s this simple… 1) Someone who joins the US military has a certain expectation that at some point in their career they may be called upon to serve within a war zone and fight an enemy. They may lose their life doing so. 2) Someone who joins the Foreign Service does not enter onto duty with the expectation that at some point in their career they may be called upon to serve within a war zone. They realize that they may serve in multiple hardship posts where they may be victimized and may lose their life doing so. What they don’t expect is being called upon to serve indefinitely in a war zone for years while surrounded by an armed enemy force that has proven they have the ability to kill personnel within the compound.

So, the reason for the recent vocal resistance in the ranks by some Foreign Service Officers reflects resentment towards the policy of forced assignments because it’s seen as a misuse of the Foreign Service at the expense of the Foreign Service Officers forced to go there for the sake of politics.

Note to Bruce: Sure, blame it on the White House. You seemed to overlook the fact that the criticism of the US presence in Iraq is that it is not a military war where a military victory ends it. It is a diplomatic engagement requiring diplomats and 24/7 diplomatic effort--so how do you do that if you only have military on the ground??????? The nature of the conflict requires expert political and diplomatic solutions and actions. It also requires foreign service officers that are more than just bureacrats who's personal risk limits are their willingness to brave the beltway rush hour traffic. The majority of FSO's understand that and have what it takes. The one's that don't should admit that to themselves instead of blaming the White House.

If you re-read Bruce's comment, you will not that he is not against going into a situation where a viable benefit can be gained, but in another other situation than this, the embassy in Iraq would be closed and the FSO's evacuated. Maybe the image of the embassy in Viet Nam will jar your memory, or maybe this will then make you rethink you assertions. You can not force a political solution on someone that does not want one. Second, you can not force a political solution on some so that you can continue to destroy their country, steal their resources and for all intent purposes, disrespect them. Keeping FSO's there is just another way to insure that Halliburton will continue to receive no-bid contracts, Blackwater will continue to win massive multi-billion dollar fees, and to allow the president to live out the rest of his ill-fated policy in Disney Land.

Pouch-Boy speaketh

Hey Bill T!
You could put all the Foreign Service Officers in all the world in Iraq and it won't change the outcome.
If you had really read my contribution you would recognize that the risk limits for Foreign Service Officers far exceed a willingness to brave beltway rush hour traffic.
I'm willing to say the emperor has no clothes. Obviously, you aren't there yet?

I am a Foreign Service Officer, and I resent comments by people who have no idea what we do in our profession or who have never tried to serve our country overseas in very difficult circumstances. In my 19 years in this profession I have spent more than half of them in developing countries in Southeast Asia, Africa and the Middle East. All of my jobs have been considered "hardship" tours, and one of them was considered a "danger" post (i.e. I witnessed violence on a regular basis, including a killing in front of the Embassy). I am not a soldier, I am not trained to be one. But I have not shirked my duty. Let me also be clear, though; Iraq service is a bridge too far for me. The idea that unarmed civilians can be placed in a live war zone is a radical departure from anything we have ever experienced in the Foreign Service. We signed up for diplomatic duty worldwide; we did not sign up to be soldiers. I should no more have to go to Iraq than should a "bureaucrat" for the Department of Education. Shame on those who would disparage our profession in this way.

I find it odd that suddenly billt has no more input after having his head handed to him, and his arguments exposed for being nothing more than the spurious rantings of an arm charge diplomat.

"Shame on us", Angela? Shame on you. You sully what sounds like an admirable career to this point. You disgrace yourself, your office, your agency, and your country. Your cowardice is an insult to America's true heroes who have the requisite intestinal fortitude to heed the call of duty and execute their missions admirably for their country. All you naysayer cowards at State disgust me.

Hey DK! Your comment reveals your ignorance of the issue! Gullible ideologues like you were great supporters of Mao during the cultural revolution!