Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute

Wednesday, October 31, 2007

Time to Close the US Embassy

I don't try to start an internet campaign very often, because the blogosphere has its own priorities and logic that are democratic and should not be forced. But here is a plea for everyone in the blogging world to help force congress to save our diplomats.

Bush is trying to Shanghai several hundred foreign service officers and force them to go to Iraq. They are protesting.

Now is that time for all Americans to stand up for the diplomats who serve this country ably and courageously throughout the world, for decades on end. Foreign service officers risk disease and death, and many of them see their marriages destroyed when spouses decline to follow them to a series of remote places. They are the ones who represent America abroad, who know languages and cultures and do their best to convince the world that we're basically a good people.

The Jesse Helms Right always hated the State Department, because it is about compromise and finding peaceful solutions, whereas the US Right is about war, violence and imposing its will on people. But is is the State Department that, despite some lapses over the decades, generally embodies the best of what America is abroad.

The guerrillas in Iraq constantly target the Green Zone and US diplomatic personnel there with mortar and rocket fire. State Department personnel sleep in trailers that are completely unprotected from such incoming fire. At several points in the past year, they have been forbidden to go outside without protective gear (as if outside were more dangerous). The Bush administration has consistently lied about the danger they are in and tried to cover up these severe security precautions.

The US embassy in Iraq should be closed. It is not safe for the personnel there. Some sort of rump mission of hardy volunteers could be maintained. But kidnapping our most capable diplomats and putting them in front of a fire squad is morally wrong and is administratively stupid, since many of these intrepid individuals will simply resign. (You cannot easily get good life insurance that covers death from war, and most State spouses cannot have careers because of the two-year rotations to various foreign capitals, and their families are in danger of being reduced to dire poverty if they are killed).

There is, in addition to the daily danger, no good escape route for civilian personnel from Baghdad. The troop escalation will be reversed by next year this time, and as the US draws down, the Green Zone is in danger of being overwhelmed by the Mahdi Army. The State Department employees sent there for two year missions are the ones who may end up in secret JAM prisons, as happened in Tehran in 1979.

Bush should not be allowed by Congress to commit this immoral act against the civilians who serve us so faithfully.

Please write your congressional representatives and senators and demand that the US embassy be closed and the forced deportation of US diplomats to Iraq be halted.

The Democrats have been facing the dilemma that they are blocked from doing much about Iraq. This is something they can do. Cut off funding for the embassy and force most of the diplomats home. This is the way to start ending the war.

Now.

Labels:

35 Comments:

At 8:43 PM, Blogger profmarcus said...

good for you, professor cole... good for you...

http://takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/

 
At 9:02 PM, Blogger Samson said...

I support your call to overturn the forced service of career diplomats in Iraq. But I wish you wouldn't repeat the Democratic Party fiction that they are blocked from doing anything about Iraq. In order to keep the war going, Congress must repeatedly authorize funds. In order to stop the war, all the Democrats need to do is to establish that they can and will block these funds.

Put it that way, and it quickly becomes apparent that the only reason the Democrats can't end the war is because many Democrats in Congress support the war. There are 51 Democratic Senators I believe. 41 could stop the war. What becomes obvious is that if the Democrats won't stop the war its because 41 Senators can't agree to do that.

The myth that they need 60 or 67 votes to stop the war is a myth presented by the Democrats to try to hide the fact that the Democrats don't want to end the war. Reid and Pelosi both promised right after election day 2006 that the funds to the war would not be cut, and they are delivering on that promise. Recently, not a major Democratic presidential candidate would commit to being out of Iraq by 2013. The Democrats voted to authorize this war and they voted to fully fund it every year since it began.

So please stop spreading the Democratic lie that they are 'blocked' from stopping a war that they have fully supported from the beginning and continue to fully support.

 
At 9:22 PM, Blogger Unknown said...

A timely piece in Vanity Fair - The Mega-Bunker of Baghdad

The new American Embassy in Baghdad will be the largest, least welcoming, and most lavish embassy in the world: a $600 million massively fortified compound with 619 blast-resistant apartments and a food court fit for a shopping mall. Unfortunately, like other similarly constructed U.S. Embassies, it may already be obsolete.

 
At 12:14 AM, Blogger Unknown said...

I will write as you are absolutely correct they should not be forced to go. I have a better suggestion I think. Why don't they just quit or just refuse to go. By refusing to go it would force the administration to either make good their threats or have to unman the embassy.

It's about time Generals and Civil servants say no to these War Criminals we call a government.

Maybe Nancy Regan was right "JUST SAY NO" and watch the Bushies go..

Cheers ,The Tiger

 
At 12:15 AM, Blogger Blue Girl, Red State said...

I am on board with your campaign. I think it is a stellar notion. I posted about it too, and added to rather than just repeating or restating your points.

 
At 12:24 AM, Blogger eurofrank said...

Dera Professor Cole

Please write your congressional representatives and senators and demand that the US embassy be closed and the forced deportation of US diplomats to Iraq be halted.

This protest reminds me of the Last Emperor in the East who couldnt find enough fighting men to man the walls of Constantinople when the Turks showed up in 1452.

I would write to my congressman but cant find a representative of the Real Rest of the World listed.

 
At 12:57 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If the Democrats can't muster a simple majority (all they need) to cut off funds for the Iraq war, what makes you think they'll have enough spine to shut down an embassy? Your implication that the Democrats are helpless, and thus blameless, for the continuing Iraq quagmire does not hold water. At least, Bush did not betray the voters who elected him. The Democrats have.

 
At 3:46 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

In an earlier post you touched upon the use of slave labor in building the embassy itself. (Not sure if you used the term though.) David Phinney in particular has reported extensively on this.

 
At 7:08 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

the diplomats have signed a contract that permits the government to assign them whereever the government chooses

.... military personnel have signed the same contract.....

frankly, i see no distinction and suggest that any movement to protest the one necessarily must protest the other

 
At 9:41 AM, Blogger Mark Pyruz said...

Sorry, Professor Cole, I don't think Tom Lantos will go for it.

 
At 11:10 AM, Blogger Arnold Evans said...

Out of curiosity, how many state department personnel have died in Iraq?

The point about the danger of an overrun is valid. Nobody can call it probable, but there is a risk.

 
At 11:18 AM, Blogger DB Cooper said...

I'm not entirely sure of the diplomats' role at the embassy in Baghdad, but wouldn't closing the embassy and taking out dozens of diplomats possibly hamper the goal of creating some sort of peace and stability through DIPLOMACY?

 
At 11:48 AM, Blogger Al said...

You lost me there Juan...it's their job. Or would diplomacy be better handled over the phone?

 
At 1:18 PM, Blogger Unknown said...

Well Juan doesn't ask often (twice in 5 years by my count) so I wrote Pelosi, Feinstein, Boxer....


You don't get what you don't demand

Besides, Hillary wants a division or two around to "protect our embassy"


After reading that Vanity Fair article, that only confirms my long held view that Washington DC policy debates are something out of StarWars

 
At 1:21 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm inclined to think Bush may very well want a mass resignation/exodus of diplomats. One, he has always wanted to get rid of the career civil service people and replace them with politicized loyal Bushies, and two, well, they're diplomats. Bush does not value diplomacy, nor uses it. So these people are doubly useless to him.

In fact, they may be a considerable hindrance if the goal is to pretend there's no choice left for US foreign policy but war. Having a functioning diplomatic corps of experienced professionals undercuts that.

It's easier to convince other people on a drifting ship that their only chance for survival is by swimming for it if you sink the boat first.

 
At 3:37 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

No one in their right mind would want to go to Iraq! This Administration, with their personal WAR OF CHOICE has brought these conditions and should not take any authority to force others to serve against their will. I suggest that George Bush, Dick Cheney and all their minions go live in the Green Zone! There they could take responsibility for their OWN choices. There has been altogether TOO much KILLING done for all their ULTERIOR MOTIVES! Jane

 
At 3:59 PM, Blogger Robbie C said...

Three foreign Foreign Service officers in the Baghdad embassy have been killed since the start of the Iraq war.

These diplomats, when they take the job (note TAKE the job -- none were forced into this career) swear an oath to serve wherever the secretary of state sends them.

But some of these guys (and gals) apparently didn’t think that meant Iraq. They’d prefer it if they could get an assignment down at the U.S. Embassy in Barbados.

While it's dangerous, 3 deaths since 2003 does not amount to the "sky is falling" scenario that Mr. Cole is distorting.

If they don't like their jobs, or want to do what they swore that they would, they should quit.

And the Foreign Service office should do a better job of recruiting the types of people willing to do the work they signed up to do.

(Nip-it-in-the-butt disclaimer: Before the inevitable "chicken hawk" meme is invoked, I'm a Veteran of the U.S. Army and Desert Storm combat Veteran. So keep it to yourself, Sally.)

 
At 4:35 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Searching for a middle ground...

The US should neither be occupying Saddam's old palace, nor constructing another obscene building like the new embassy. Why not reduce the number of diplomats - the PRTs are a waste of resources - and move a smaller number of diplomats into a different, more modest existing structure in the Green Zone?

A total diplomatic withdrawal from Iraq may make sense in terms of hardball politics here in the US, but it is hardly a good idea in terms of policy. I'd rather concentrate on pushing the Congress to start defunding military operations.

Most Iraqis I know (and no, they are not all Kurds) want the occupation to end, but they don't want to completely sever any relationship with the US. Iraqis often have a more nuanced view... they obviously don't want US forces killing Iraqis or stealing their oil. They do want student visas, economic relations and cultural exchange... some sort of relationship with the US.

It may be that the US will have to evacuate the embassy by helicopter from the rooftops like in Vietnam. But it may also be that the next Administration will succeed in militarily disengaging from Iraq under circumstances short of total diplomatic disengagement. We just don't know at this time.

 
At 4:53 PM, Blogger nitish said...

according to an AP article @ http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jSQ14PoKO8jjCLmzfdzIzty14IjwD8SL2JF81

"No U.S. diplomats have been killed in Iraq since the war began in March 2003. But the union that represents them counts three foreign service personnel, not necessarily officers, as having been killed in Iraq during that time."

 
At 8:18 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

dire poverty ?...FSOs are among the best paid in the federal workforce, senior officers(Croddy) making 140 - 160k with large life insurance (payable even for war related deaths)fixed lifetime pensions and health insurance. Sitting on DC area real estate, they probably fall within top 5-10 percent of income/wealth distribution. Moral dilemmas over U.S. policy yes, dire poverty no way.

 
At 10:15 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

There are a lot of inaccuracies in the posts on this issue, on both sides. I'll address some as I can:

No FSOs have been killed in Iraq, but 3 State Department employees have, including members of Diplomatic Security; State Department's security and law enforcement branch. Because they are law enforcement officers they are not Foreign Service Officers, per se, but they are friends and colleagues.

Most FSOs are not in danger of dire poverty, but they are not within the top 10% of income/wealth distribution. The average base salary of an FSO with 15 years experience is 88k. Croddy probably earns base 123k as the equivalent of a major general, and that's after 35 years of service.

The FSO pension is decent, but comes to about 40k a year for someone who retires at the Colonel-equivalent level with 25 years in service (a normal rank and term of service). Nice, but not luxurious.

FSOs do not swear an oath to serve anywhere the Secretary wishes to send them. They swear "to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States." They sign an employment contract agreeing to world-wide availability. In the event an FSO no longer wishes (or is able) to be deployed worldwide, the FSO must resign or face disciplinary action which can result in termination of employment.

This may seem like hair-splitting, but it is not. An oath is the single most serious obligation any commissioned officer takes, and FSOs take theirs as seriously as any officer in the service of the United States anywhere. An employment contract is not in the same category. What is true is that being asked to serve in Iraq is a risk of employment, and if the risk is unacceptable, the alternative is to find other employment.

As for the State Department hiring the "types of people willing to do the work they signed up to do;" it does. There are firemen and policemen in every community -- both put their lives on the line to help the community, but you don't call the fire department when there is an intruder in your home, and the police are a poor second choice when you need to extinguish a fire.

The same is true of Foreign Service Officers and uniformed officers. FSOs are killed or injured every year in the line of duty -- it is an accepted risk of representing the U.S. in an increasingly dangerous world. The question is whether service in Iraq, which is a country enmeshed in violence, is in "the line of duty" for a diplomat. Diplomats do not carry weapons; they are not soldiers. It is at least arguable that Iraq, with its current level of unrest, is a war zone, and still the province of the professional soldier.

Finally, Mr. Croddy does not speak for the Foreign Service, nor was he deputized in some way to speak for all FSOs in the town hall event which has become so public. He simply was the most provocative of the speakers in the audience. This made him news worthy. He is entitled to his opinions, but they should not be used to paint the feelings of the service as a whole.

There may be a few resignations, but there will be no mass exodus. FSOs will continue to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan because that is what they are being asked to do. They are professionals, and they serve the elected representives of the U.S. government regardless of their personal political beliefs. That's the S in FSO. Please, if you agree on nothing else, respect that service. It's no more, but certainly no less, than the service all officers of all branches have undertaken.

 
At 10:37 PM, Blogger Tommy Times said...

This appears to be a good idea. The pro-war crowd will not buy this, noting that the embassy in Saigon stayed open during the Vietnam war (but Iraq is not Vietnam, eh?)

The State Dept. will not do anything resembling diplomacy as long as Condi Rice is running it.

 
At 8:52 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

No diplomats in the obscenely large embassy? Who would the hordes of Blackwater-type contractors (eagerly awaiting the call-up) have to guard?

 
At 10:48 AM, Blogger Nur-al-Cubicle said...

I'm inclined to think Bush may very well want a mass resignation/exodus of diplomats.

This may be right. Bush would love to militarize the diplomatic corps-->viz. Powell and Armitage.

 
At 1:31 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Typical liberal blabber.. lets face it, they signed up for the job and swore to do it, if they dont like it then they can quit.
im surprised as a professor he donsnt know the meaning of "shang hai"

Dont like the war? fine, disagree with it. Support the war? fine.

But when you take a job and know that you can be stationed anywhere as needed and then suddenly they dont like it? well then thats childish and not taking their job or oath seriously.

They WILLINGLY signed up and WILLINGLY took the job and WILLINGLY said they understand the terms of the contract. How hard is that to understand?

 
At 2:04 PM, Blogger BadTux said...

Indeed, Tommy, Iraq is not Vietnam. And Baghdad most certainly is not Saigon. At least in Vietnam, Thieu's government controlled its own capital city thanks to its effective and brutal secret police, and Americans could walk around safely with no worries about their own personal safety. Maliki's government controls nothing, and Baghdad, unlike Saigon, is a combat zone.

Diplomacy in a combat zone is a job for the U.S. Army Civil Affairs Office, not for the U.S. State Department. Until there is a civil government that controls Baghdad, there is not anything for the U.S. State Department to do. They're diplomats, not soldiers, their job is to talk to foreign governments, not create a government where there is none, and without a functioning government to talk to (and Maliki's does not qualify because, by definition, a functioning government controls at least its own capital city), they're just targets.

 
At 2:08 PM, Blogger John Rohan said...

I'm not a member of the State Department, but I have completed two tours in Iraq, and visited the Green Zone/IZ several times.

Professor Cole is wrong on so many things in this article that I couldn't possibly fit them all here. I started writing a comment but, as things sometimes go, it grew so long I published it on my web site instead.

Bottom line is, using words like "forced" or "firing squad" are not only wildly inaccurate, but hypocritical because they are exactly the same sort of fear-mongering that you have previously condemned from the Bush administration, on many occasions.

 
At 4:01 PM, Blogger RonF said...

et's have a look at the State Department's own web site, shall we? From their "Careers FAQ":

Do I have to accept every assignment that is offered?

Foreign Service personnel can express their preference for postings, but must be willing to serve worldwide according to the needs of the Service.

Does the system tolerate dissent?

As public servants, Foreign Service Officers must publicly defend U.S. government policy, despite personal reservations. There is an internal channel through which an employee may present dissenting views on specific foreign policy issues. If an officer cannot publicly defend official U.S. policy, he or she has the option to resign.

From "Where We Work"

Worldwide availability is both an affirmed willingness to serve anywhere in the world and a matter of being medically qualified to do so. Both the willingness and being medically qualified are essential requirements for appointment to the Foreign Service. Worldwide availability also means that members of the Foreign Service are expected to serve anywhere in the world, even in cases where family members cannot go to post due to political instability and/or other concerns, or when family members must leave post as conditions deteriorate (evacuations).

Candidates should also bear in mind that Foreign Service Officers are expected to take assignments that can involve extremely difficult work, hardship, and even danger. We are looking for capable, healthy, dedicated candidates who are prepared to step up to the challenges the Foreign Service faces in today’s world.

And here's the oath they took:

I, [name] do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same. That I take this obligation freely and without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. That I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me, God.

Frankly, I can understand that they would be very concerned. But they were warned explicitly and repeatedly. Your statement that they are being Shanghaied is a blatant lie - they volunteered in the face of numerous warnings that their career could include just this kind of scenario.

These people made a commitment on their personal honor. So they have two honorable courses of action to take. The first is to go, and keep their mouths shut, because the premise on which they signed up for a job at State is to promote the foreign policy of the United States of America and that's why they're getting paid. The second honorable course for them to take is to resign, at which point they are free to say anything they want to about the U.S.'s foreign policies. But trying to undermine the U.S.'s foreign policy while being employed by the U.S. to promote it is treachery.

 
At 4:45 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I second the informed comments made by Anonymous. I'll add that Croddy and like minded individuals are construed by many in uniform as being both selfish and even cowardly. As an instructor at a uniformed staff college, and recent returnee from Afghanistan,my students and I find their stance to be reprehensible in light of sacrifices made daily by those in uniform.

 
At 7:22 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Last time I told my boss that I wasn't going to do what the contract I signed said I was supposed to do, he said "No problem. The door's over there. See ya!"

Sounds like a reasonable approach in this case too.

 
At 1:28 AM, Blogger Liz said...

I think the amount of time FSO's can be deployed in a hazard zone is six months - that was my understanding when my cousin served in what was (is) a war zone. And the whole extended family basically held our breath until he was safely out of there.

Randomly throwing career diplomats from all over the world into Iraq is a disastrous, stupid thing to do. We have dedicated men and women who cultivate relationships over YEARS with foreign governments, and this country relies on that expertise to bail us out all the time. How can it possibly make any sense to take, say, a Deputy Chief of Mission in Bangkok, who knows the local culture, language, and people, and toss them into Baghdad? It's simply mindless squandering of their expertise. And we don't have any of that to spare.

 
At 1:21 PM, Blogger BadTux said...

Just a reminder to the war supporters here: Diplomats are not soldiers. Their job is to talk to the host government, issue passports and visas, and other stuff like that. If there is no functioning host government (and a host government that doesn't even control its own capital city can hardly be called functioning), and if they can't issue passports and visas because civilians cannot be allowed into the embassy for security reasons, there just isn't any reason to put them there, and unlike soldiers, diplomats don't sign up to fight wars. They don't have training, and they don't carry guns. That isn't their job. Ask them to do the job of a soldier, and they'll quit. And you won't be able to get anybody who knows anything to replace them, because people like me can get equally-well-paying jobs in the civilian section that do NOT involve having mortar shells dropped on our heads. My job is to deal with constructing infrastructure, not fight a war.

As for reconstruction in a war zone, the U.S. Army has an entire branch for that. It's called Civil Affairs. These are soldiers who have training to operate in a war zone, and the guns to keep them safe. Civil Affairs, not the U.S. State Department, should be handling the details of what little reconstruction is possible in Iraq while bombs are still blowing up on a regular basis and gunfire at night is routine. I mean, the green zone gets mortared on a regular basis. Diplomats don't sign up to have mortar shells be dropped on their head. That's a soldier's job.

 
At 12:45 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This article motivates me to write my representatives and encourage them to pressure the administration to terminate anyone at the State Department that doesn't want to do their job. It sounds like there are a few. I bet there aren't that many though. There was a woman at that 'Town Hall' meeting that related how rewarding her Iraq assignment was and she got more of an ovation than the guy whining hyperbolically about death sentences.

FSOs should not be political activists. If they want that job, they should resign and go for it. The compensation package isn't as good. It is, however, a safe career in the US.

How many FSOs have been killed in Iraq? ZERO!!!

 
At 1:21 PM, Blogger BadTux said...

Good idea, John! While you're at it, why don't you contact Congress and ask them to fire that young GI at the Army recruiting office who refuses to do my laundry for me. A GI who refuses to do my laundry isn't doing his job, just like a diplomat who refuses to grab a gun and go gung-ho into battle isn't doing his job.

-- Badtux the Snarky Penguin

 
At 12:57 AM, Blogger Consul-At-Arms said...

@john,

To my certain knowledge, at least three members of the Foreign Service (two Diplomatic Security special agents and one Foreign Service Officer generalist) have been killed in Iraq.

I know of at least one FSO generalist who died there of (unspecified) "natural causes," just as one of my fellow staff sergeants did during my deployment there. It's a harsh environment, which is one reason for requiring a Class 1 medical clearance for diplomats being assigned there.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home