Wednesday, November 07, 2007
A foreign service officer in Iraq tells it like it is
Most newshounds are aware that at least some Foreign Service Officers ("FSOs") in the State Department are up in arms because they may be required to serve in Iraq. Lefty blogs are calling for the closing of the American embassy in Iraq. Well, John Matel, an FSO serving in Iraq, has responded to his "overwrought colleagues" in an interesting post on the State Department's official blog.
I am not familiar enough with State Department rules and organizational culture to know whether the revolting FSOs are justified in their reaction or a wimpy embarrassment to the State Department's tradition of intrepid courage. I do know this, though: The Associated Press's characterization of Matel's gentle post as "harshly critical" is itself ridiculously "overwrought." Either A.P. reporter Matthew Lee has never felt the sting of genuinely harsh criticism -- it would appear he has not been to professional school, worked in business, or served in the military -- or he is spinning the story for the benefit of the dissenting FSOs. It is hard to imagine a third explanation.
4 Comments:
By 
Rick Ballard, at
Wed Nov 07, 02:18:00 PM:
TH,
Thank you very much for this one. I didn't know that the DoS had a blog and I'm particularly grateful to read Mr. Matel's post.
There are plenty of decent people doing tough jobs in service to our nation - it's a true shame that the propagandists within the media focus on malcontents with political agendas.
By 
, at
Thu Nov 08, 09:41:00 AM:
One money quote, "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."
Diplomats are supposedly the peacemakers. Isn't this what the left has been screaming for in Iraq - more diplomacy to bring about peace?
By AmPowerBlog, at
Thu Nov 08, 06:32:00 PM:
They're not justified. There's no smorgasbord for diplomatic assignments. One's assigned on the basis of the needs of the State Department. Besides, FSOs join on the basis of professional non-partisanship. They are not supposed to be vocally opposed to any particular administration's policy.
This episode of the FSO's "townhall" was a disaster.
By Consul-At-Arms, at
Fri Nov 09, 03:00:00 PM:
@ Prof. Douglas,
"One's assigned on the basis of the needs of the State Department."
That's actually inaccurate, the facts of which are at the root of a lot of the unhappiness within the Foreign Service about this.
Since the Vietnam War (and some exceptional assignments to some posts in Africa in following decades), most Foreign Service assignments are not "directed assignments" solely on the basis of the State Department's needs.
During an FSO's probationary period (approximately their first two 2-year assignments), those assignments are directed assignments (although even those do take into account an officer's preferences, at least somewhat; needs of the service are controlling however).
Once receiving a permanent commission as an FSO, an officer has had considerably more say and input in where he or she will be assigned. That's why making any assignments, let alone to a war zone, directed rather than voluntary is such a big deal.
Up until now, all FSO jobs in Iraq have been filled by officers who volunteered specifically to go there, to the tune of over 2,000 officers (one-fifth of the Foreign Service).
I can't say as I've actually seen the footage from the meeting, but then I don't like "reality TV."
