Shouldn't they be able to choose where they are stationed? Why would anyone want to be stationed in harm's way anyway?
2007-10-27 01:52:07 · 13 answers · asked by Horton Heard You! 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Embassies & Consulates
When you become a Foreign Service Officer, you agree to be available for worldwide assignment. This is the State Department cashing that chip in. It is a remarkable testament to the patriotism and professionalism of the Foreign Service that the Department has been able to staff Embassy Baghdad for four years without any directed assignments.
Foreign Service Officers never really get to "choose" where they serve. They submit a list and if one of those posts meets the needs of the Service, then they are assigned there. It is always a compromise and ultimately the needs of the Service will win out.
Just as the military doesn't have members in harm's way just in Iraq, the Foreign Service has people stationed in dangerous places like Kabul, Kosovo, Eastern Africa, Pakistan, Haiti, etc. etc. Even when you are at home in DC, you work in one of the highest profile "target" buildings in the world. Being in harm's way is part of what it is to serve your country as a Foreign Service Officer.
2007-10-27 02:28:30 · answer #1 · answered by Marc D 3 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Why should they be able to cherry pick where they are stationed? The Armed Forces don't have that luxury to select where they want to be deployed, and besides that is their duty and their chosen career. Any staff that refuse to report to the Iraqi post should be terminated or professionally sanctioned forthwith! Harm can come to the staff in whichever location they are stationed just because of where they work & what they represent. The U.S. interest & citizens should be able to be properly represented wherever diplomatic relations are deemed necessary to be established in a host country.
2007-10-27 11:41:37 · answer #2 · answered by Kingston 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think it's a good idea. We need these people over here, and unfortunatly, they don't want to be here. So the Government will force them to come here and do their job. heck, most of them will be here for less time than soldiers are. Nobody wants to go to Iraq, to be away from their family for a year, but they decided that this is what they wantted to do with their life and they have to go where the job takes them.
You could make the same arguement for servicemembers, shouldn't we get to choose where we are stationed, but then who would fight for your right to sit on Y/A and ask questions like this one? Why would we want to be put in harms way? We don't like being hit by IEDs or get attacked by rockets by an enemy who disappears into the local population. Yet we do it, because it's our job. The Embassy Delegates will just have to come here, because it's their job.
2007-10-27 02:03:14 · answer #3 · answered by armyparalegal 3 · 5⤊ 1⤋
when a consular position becomes available in the upper echelons of the diplomatic function a person with the experiance required is sent in to fulfil the mission. ambassadors are like military personnel. if i am in the army and i say, well i would much rather be stationed in the carribean to work on my tan, rather than in iraq... i mean honestly. if someone works for the department of state they understand that they are an extension of our government and that they must go to where the need is greatest.
if you read this army paralegal... thank you for your service. thank you for being proud of serving our nation. i work for USAREC in fourth battalion, fifth company. you opinion means a great deal to us, and here at home we are eager to have you guys back when the mission is complete.
2007-10-27 09:31:50 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think you will see the employment ranks withing our government foreign services shrink a little! I don't think everyone who serves will readily accept a new assignment there, so I would expect some of the "gravy-train" riders to take a walk to the public sector! Unfortunately, they don't answer to the same regulations as those serving in the armed forces! They can quit!
2007-10-27 02:36:38 · answer #5 · answered by da_zoo_keeper 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Seems enevitable. Nobody in their right mind would want to be there today. Its almost as if they are aiding and abetting in an ongong war crime. I can not see us accomplishing anything good of long lasting, but at least its dangerous and unstable. For those who missed out on the waning days of the Vietnam war in the Foreign Service, here is a chance to witness something similar.
2007-10-27 02:07:38 · answer #6 · answered by planksheer 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
If you don't know all the facts, and you don't! then don't judge. I was in the USAF and saw and heard a lot of stuff that the GP never heard about. I never believe the media! They don't tell the truth and don't know all the facts. If they did they probably would not report it with any level of accuracy. Just pray for those that are in authority and let God deal with them.
Opinions are like hineys; everybody has one and they all stink!!!
2007-10-27 02:05:26 · answer #7 · answered by Free Thinker 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
embassy workers are no different from any other working American,if your employer ask you to go and work out of an hell hole of an office in pit land u.s.a.,or in an office in war torn Iraq,you go or quit or be fired,everybody knows the risks involved with whatever line of work you choose!
2007-10-27 01:59:02 · answer #8 · answered by truckman 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
i think it;s a bad idea.hope they have a lot of life insurance.we don;t belong over there to began with.but if you want to put yourselfs in arms way.then you deserve what you get.i think the people who make you go there should go there themselfs.just a real stupid idea.but of course we have a stupid person running the white house right now.he thinks he can change the world to.
2007-10-27 02:26:05 · answer #9 · answered by bigjon5555 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Uhhh, NO. They get transfered around just like the military.
2007-10-27 02:00:39 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋