Quote:
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
we had no diplomats in Vietnam?
|
I didn't say that. I don't have his e-mail in front of me, but I think what he told me was that the size of the embassy there was cut down in response to the safety issues.
From a WaPo article on the issue:
- Although senior officials defended the plan, others contradicted McCormack's assertion that they had committed to be sent anywhere in the world.
"People didn't sign up for the foreign service to go get killed in the war zone," said a Washington-based State Department official who volunteered and served in Iraq during the invasion but does not want to return.
"In any other country, an embassy like that would be in evacuation status," said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
Morale is not helped by news from colleagues in Baghdad who say inadequate security has kept them holed up in the Green Zone, unable to interact frequently with the Iraqi officials and ministries they are supposed to advise....
eta: This anonymous comment on a blog echoes things my friend was saying:
- Unlike military officers:
1. Their earnings are NOT tax-free in Iraq (that's also unlike non-federal Americans -- ONLY federal civilian employees pay tax there, military, contractors, NGO reps, business people, etc don't).
2. They are not guarranteed health care for life like military officers. FSOs face potentially big problems if they are severely injured in Iraq.
Even worse, a regular federal employee (say, a DoD or Dept of Education civil servant) has to fall back on just a worker's comp claim if they lose a leg to an IED while working in Iraq. After initial evacuation back to the US they have no access to the special trauma / rehab care the military does. Better hope your primary care physician knows to treat life-threatening war wounds as well as varicose veins. Likewise, better hope you have many months of sick leave built up.
3. Likewise, while in Iraq you only have access to military health care for emergencies -- need a root canal and you're out looking for a dentist on the streets of Bagdhad. That's different for FSOs, however.
4. FSOs are likely to have had no military training or other emergency training, can't carry weapons, and will tend to be significantly older and not necesarily in as good health as military officers.
5. The current crop of FSOs has been recuited and retained generally on the assumption that they are not involuntarily deployed into war zones. I have no moral problem with saying we want a diplomatic corps we DO deploy like that, but, it's reasonable for them to feel like the terms of their (admittedly tacit) contract have been changed with corresponding compensation to them. Expect recruitment/retention problems and be prepared to increase benefits to make up for it.
If you look on the web, you can also find plenty of people who feel differently.
