[tinetttstation]

All I can say is ****.

I'd change jobs.

[freflellalafe]

Could some of the more no brainer posts be filled by the military? I'm sure that some of the posts could also be filled by the CIA.

How about out-sourcing? Could much of the clerical work be done on-line in other countries?

What if we designed the world's first robotic embassy?

[buchmausar]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
What if we designed the world's first robotic embassy?

[iNYZgxNC]

I'd go tomorrow if they give me three squares a day and $80,000 non taxed at the end of one year, all the benefits and a two million $ life insurance policy for the duration.

[gactanync]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
What's that supposed to mean, Dr. Jackass?
No brainers jobs. Suitable for the military.
You mean like medic and things of that nature? I think he means the stereotypical "paper pusher". Not an insult aginst the military, just a job that literally anyone can do without any particular skills or training.

[feannigvogten]

Is this diplomat thing a job where you can go school for it and thne go like "I'm a diplomat!".

Screw that. In many many countries it involves a degree of danger. Don't like it? Get a new job. No one is FORCING them to go there. Hey join the military and see how it works for you when you want out, as a diplomat? You can quit.

These pussies aren't any good though. They know they don't have any real job prospects left, because all they did was sit around in the house of the diplomat, run the local prostitution ring and park your car in the wrong places and not pay the fines for it. Yeah, dude, can we hire you as our new manager? With your qualifications, and the fact that you resigned from this job makes you a supeeerb candidate!

I don't care if these people die. They're too weak.

[Effofqueeno]

Originally posted by Pekka
No one is FORCING them to go there. Hey join the military and see how it works for you when you want out, as a diplomat? You can quit. actually, they joined with the presumption that wont be forced to a specific position.

if they wanted to join the army, they would have done so.

[Muesrasrs]

Its their job. Sure you don't mind soaking up the benefits in the easy posts but once its time to earn your keep all of a sudden its "not what I signed up for." Read your contracts, some Army Reservists can tell you how it worked out for them.

"But I only joined the reserves for the extra money, I didn't actually want to fight..."

[Heliosprime]

Geez diplomacy sure has come a long way since the days of the Great Game in the 19th century...

Can't they just retire if they don't wanna go? I mean 'forcing' means you HAVE to, right?

I'm sure there's a lot of reservists in Iraq who would love to be trained to fill one of these cushy jobs.

[8IhGpvH0]

"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," Mr Croddy said. Yes, cause you know, everyone in government only do their job if they believe in the policy being executed, and if they don't, they automatically get an exemption (but they keep all the sweet bonuses).

"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? This reeks of so much selfishness and disrespect for the guys losing their lives in the army and intelligence services...

This guy has not a patriotic bone in him.
I would fire this guy and strip him of pension.

[HilaryNidierer]

Out of curiosity, exactly how many State employees have been killed in Iraq compared to how many are there? I'm curious about the basis for this whining.

[Qxsumehj]

Originally posted by Lancer
I'd go tomorrow if they give me three squares a day and $80,000 non taxed at the end of one year, all the benefits and a two million $ life insurance policy for the duration. I don't think they can give you the "non-taxed" deal. The IRS always gets theirs.

And really, the reason State employees are raising Cain about this is to get the government to change their mind before they resign en mass. I mean a lot will probably refuse, but this way, the admin knows it prior to the fact and may change their tune on it.

I also think it's a culmination of frustration at the administration. I think the Washington Post article said that 88% of State employees do NOT think Condi Rice is fighting for them and probably a good number of diplomats at State disagree with the Iraq War.

[prmwsinfo]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Phony diplomats :q: qft

[jinnsamys]

Is that just the military though? I wasn't under the impression that civilian government workers got the same, even while in hazardous duty zones.

[Tazqoaap]

I dunno. I know of two friends (not government workers though) of mine going over there for the no tax thing.

[awagsFare]

And besides, this was a town hall meeting, persumably, I'd imagine, to ask the rank and file what they personally thought (as well as giving them the news). So, what's the big deal?

[f6HLLFcw]

Originally posted by Seeker
OK, so I'm getting the impression that this is really about them disagreeing with Bush policy. Not really, though somewhat. All diplomats have been publicly agreeing with Bush policies for the last 7 years, regardless of how they actually feel. That's their job, and they do their jobs.

It's also not about danger. State has little problem staffing Kabul, Khartoum, Nairobi, Georgetown, or Port Moresby, even though each of those is arguably more dangerous than Iraq .

It's really about 3 things:

1) The lack of transparency in the process. There was no preparation of the rank-and-file for this announcement. The cable announcing the decision went out at around 6:30 pm EDT, when only a handful of diplomate, in consulates like Vancouver and Tiajuana, were still at work. The rest of the diplomatic corps learned of the decision from the Washington Post or from Google News. This is not how the State traditionally handles this kind of news; State is small, liberal, democratic, and consensus-driven, and this kind of high-handed after-hours annoncement is not at all consistent with State practice or culture.

2) There's a broad feeling at State -- voiced especially by those who have already served in Iraq -- that there is serious, meaningful work to be done in Iraq right now, but it's not work for diplomats. Diplomats do their work in at least somewhat stable countries with at least somewhat meaningful governments; they work under these conditions not because they are weenies, but because those are the preconditions for diplomacy to work at all.

Someone at the press conference said, "If this [Iraq] were any other country in the world, we would have closed the embassy by now" -- and that's exactly right. There's a sense that we're standing up the largest embassy in the world in Baghdad not because the need is greatest there, but because the Bush Administration refuses to admit that things aren't going as planned, ever. Not surprisingly, some people have a problem with separating from their families and risking PTSD (a documented, serious problem among State workers returning from Iraq) just so the worst president of their lifetimes can try to sustain a fiction.

That said, when Iraq reaches even the precarious stability than Afghanistan now has, they'll have no trouble staffing Iraq -- because at that point, there will finally be some work for State to do.

3) But the truth is, they're having no trouble staffing Iraq now. The Foreign Service is small, and staffing shortages are common worldwide; on average, our embassies are staffed at about 80% of desired capacity. Iraq, for which the administration has created 250 Foreign Service positions, has 202 volunteers -- 80%. The question of why Iraq should be the one country in the world NOT subject to ordinary staffing shortages is legitimate, especially given objection #2, above.

And if people don't like it, they can resign -- and they will. I probably would, if called -- even though I'm volunteering for other extremely dangerous posts next tour, including Afghanistan. This isn't about whining (though of course there are whiners, just like in any other profession); it's about the integrity of the Foreign Service -- about the work that diplomats can and should do as well as about its culture, which matters as much to diplomats as Marine Corps culture matters to jarheads.

[Vikonbarius]

Why didn't mention that stuff rather than the whining, self serving objections they did?

[Assauraarguck]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Why didn't mention that stuff rather than the whining, self serving objections they did? I've seen the whole town meeting on tape. They did mention all that stuff. You didn't read it, though, because "Diplomats Object To Death Sentence" sells newspapers, while "Diplomats Object To Lack Of Transparency in HR Process" doesn't. Try to contain your surprise.

[hereiamguy]

Of course my previous post assumes the administration cares about preserving senior talent at the Foreign Service and preventing a possible mass exodus. Given the administration's record that might not be a good assumption.