A diplomat refusing to perform his duty is worse in my book than a soldier refusing perform his. I knew the risks when I enlisted in the United States Marine Corps, but I believed then that my greatest allies were in the United States diplomatic corps as they would be working to end any conflict. What I hear from the State Department today is not a group of conscientious objectors, but a bunch of lazy bureaucrats ignoring their duty and growing fat behind their desks.

I do not support the war in Iraq, and my taxes pay the State Department salaries to end it.

Sent by trvolk | 12:21 PM ET | 11-01-2007

Well, Trvolk. My taxes pay the President and all of the Executive Branch. I don't feel he is doing his job either.
Watch out, Next Stop "The Draft".

Sent by JT, Sunnyvale CA | 12:39 PM ET | 11-01-2007

These diplomats apparently are only willing to accept soft and cushy assignments. So what, they can go there for 6 months or so, the family stays
behind--the military does accepts these
assignments all the times. They worry about their kids and who would take care of them--the military has the same
problem and they go wherever their assignments take them. Poor mistreated diplomats!!!

Sent by Wolf Koehle | 5:07 PM ET | 11-01-2007

Would it not be less expensive to:

1. Pay all diplomats/key "players" involved to meet at a "safe" zone for discussions.

2. Use encrypted electronic/video communications systems--rather than send diplomats into the midst of potential harm?

Sent by anonymous | 5:13 PM ET | 11-01-2007

I didn't vote for that congenital idiot twice. I have no responsibility in his policy decisions.

If I were a diplomat who had nothing to do with Bush and therefore nothing to do with the mess in Iraq, I would resign. The diplomats cannot win this fight with reason since Bush does not respect reason.

Sent by Raymond Tate | 5:17 PM ET | 11-01-2007

It???s unfortunate we have Foreign Service Officers (FSO) reacting the way they are. There are too many college graduates that are still waiting to be called up to start working at the State Department, I would go in a moments notice, and I don't think they are better than the military personnel serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. Whether there is war or not, the war on terror has changed everything and in a time of war FSO's should be prepared just like our military personnel to ship out regardless of the geographical location.

Sent by Antoinette | 5:19 PM ET | 11-01-2007

what whining scum! My friends fought and died in Vietnam for a war they did not support, either. And for about $250.00/month. Drafted of course. These fat cats want all the goodies and none of the sacrafice. Screw 'em.

Sent by M. Ross Thompson | 5:22 PM ET | 11-01-2007

Local Reservists just returned from their 3rd Iraq tour. Sorry, but I have little empathy left for the Dips. They need to see first-hand their failures.

Sent by Jollie Rouge | 5:31 PM ET | 11-01-2007

Mr. Croddy is right. Morale in the State Dept. may be as bad as it's ever been. We are constructing the largest embassy in the world - in Iraq, a crumbling near 3rd world country. Presumably the reason we're doing this is to impress someone & to shore up the newly created Iraqi govt. Diplomats are barely protected & State typically puts such a mission on hold, evacuating all but a handful of personnel. (e.g.The embassy in Haiti has been shut down most of the last several years.) There is a sense that Ms Rice has made this move for show, for political reasons, but not for the reasons we have a State Dept. Those selected are being placed in danger in a bully-boy manner, will be trapped in the Green Zone where even Iraqi politicians will seldom go.

Sent by DVKoch | 5:32 PM ET | 11-01-2007

And I thought Jimmy Carter's administration was a bit incompotent, but this administration will go down as one of the worst in history.Although only 3 diplomats have been killed in Iraq make it a lottery to decide who goes

Sent by GCD | 5:33 PM ET | 11-01-2007

Its about time the diplomats learn at a gut level the facts that face our brave soldiers. Better diplomacy will result. I have only contempt for those who both refuse to serve and also expect to retain their job.

Sent by Gordon Powell | 5:36 PM ET | 11-01-2007

Can a person really "serve" when he or she objects to what he is ordered to do? To force a person to "serve" in Iraq or anywhere else is the best way to make a saboteur,or at least a sympathizer for the other side out of that person.

Sent by HUBERT VONFRIESEN, SANTA ROSA,CA.,USA | 5:38 PM ET | 11-01-2007

You have to take into account the ones who were gung-ho to go early on truly believed the administration's view of the war and to be honest were very wet behind the ears.

Those making a stink right now are mostly career diplomats who see what we've done in Iraq as the wrong path. State and the Administration didn't want to hear their view all along.

Smells more political...e.g. Left leaning diplomats being asked to go while Right leaning diplomats will just leave the service to plush jobs.

If anything this will remove ALOT of credible effective State Department personnel from the ranks.

What a shame... Years ago you would have gone after the junior pool and told them they are going.

Someone who has put in 20+ years to State isn't going to go no. They know the score and they know that their chances of leaving Iraq unscathed aren't good.

Sent by NPS | 5:39 PM ET | 11-01-2007

Funny to see how one section of people are sacrificing for the nation and other turning their backs. I didnt know that men and women serving Iraq had no family to take care of ...

Sent by peter | 5:39 PM ET | 11-01-2007

Diplomats should go where assigned or quit and belief in a policy of any administration is not necessary to do a good job for the administration. It is akin to a defense lawyer's job. Professionals do what needs to be done and seeking a job at State implies you wish to be a professional diplomat.

Sent by Ray Hodnett | 5:40 PM ET | 11-01-2007

The diplomats should have done their homework before sending in the military. It was your job to prevent the war, you didn't. Now you whine because you have to take part in the mess you made by using a tool made for destruction (we in the military) instead of the tools of peace (diplomacy). Republican or Democrat as 'diplomats' you have all failed, reap what you've sown.

Sent by Rob M. | 5:42 PM ET | 11-01-2007

I think we should bring back the draft- a discriminatory one - for all neocons who supported the war, no matter what their ages. Since bombs and bullets kill Iraqi children and senior citizens i see no reason that why Wolfowitz, fieth, Perle and the rest shouldn't be subject to the hell they have advocated.

Sent by me | 5:42 PM ET | 11-01-2007

This is not a news story. If employees whine in a town hall meeting, that's hardly news. However, if anyone does refuse a reassignment they should be fired. That is a condition of their employment, and they can make the choice whether they want to work for the State Department or not.

Sent by LS | 5:43 PM ET | 11-01-2007

They do not go where they are needed, then they should be fired. Serving in another country that may or may not be dangerous is part of their job.

Sent by Mike Sarringar | 5:44 PM ET | 11-01-2007

This is somewhat Ironic seeing how if a volunteer Marine or Soldier refuses his orders and misses movement, he or she is court martialed and sent to the brig and lababled a traiter or coward. I do not see a law that provides the same sort of justice to US Diplomats nor any sort of compensation that a diplomat earns for negotiating, not leading a platoon of men and women into harms way. What really takes the cake for me however is that he (Veteran Diplomat) is worried about his children and their well being while disregarding the hundred thousand troops already in harms way under the same predicament. Why does he not call for their withdrawal if he is so inclinded to avoid Iraq due to it being a death sentence? Funny thing is, I don't ever recall hearing this diplomat speak out for any one of the service branches' troops serving who are not only forced to go out there, but are also under no sort of accomidations nor protection that US Diplomats are afforded. I wish this point could be brought up and spoken about.

Sent by Joe (Veteran) | 5:45 PM ET | 11-01-2007

honestly, the diplomats got their jobs knowing they'd have to go places, and possibly visit hostile countries, hmm... sounds alot like the military no? I am a United States Marine, so what about myself and my fellow Marines? who is going to take care of our families if we die or are severely injured? My deployments are mandatory, yours should be too, go earn your paycheck you tofu fartin' fairy, "Git 'er dun"...

Sent by Sgt Grunt | 5:45 PM ET | 11-01-2007

Now that diplomatic security corps is going to be hobbled by "ROE's" and subject to the same risks that those "rules" have forced our troops to suffer through the left wing has succesfully disarmed and put at the enemies mercy all Americans who go to this uncompromising and chaotic Arab land where the enemy follows NO rules in there cold blooded attacks.
I wouldn't go either.!

Sent by Steven C. Jackson | 5:52 PM ET | 11-01-2007

They make it sound like their children are more important than the soldiers' children & their lives mean more. I do not find one life more valuable than another. Many of the military may not agree or at least understand the war but they serve as they promised. It is a shame the diplomats do not have the same values.

Sent by Jewel | 5:57 PM ET | 11-01-2007

trvolk, diplomats are CIVILIANS. They don't join the State Department expecting to go into war zones.

Sent by Cathe | 6:01 PM ET | 11-01-2007

"The Draft"...yup something you liberals have been trying to do for years.
The Pot callin' the kettle...
If the diplomats don't want to go...fire them.

Sent by sailor | 6:02 PM ET | 11-01-2007

Of course they should go. Their job is their job and I don't think that anywhere in their contract it says they wouldn't have to go somewhere dangerous. Hell, if people only had to diplomats in non-dangerous places, what would we need diplomats for? Diplomats serve the country and they serve wherever the country tells them to. "Who will take care of our children?" - Ask the single moms and dads whose spouse is already in Iraq.

Sent by Bryan, Fort Gordon, GA | 6:09 PM ET | 11-01-2007

Tell you what, "trvolk," here are a few options you might consider:

1) Enlighten us all, based on your military knowledge and experience, as to how precisely you would recommend that diplomatic personnel "work to end" the conflict.

2) Keep posting self-righteous and sweeping statements about State Department "lazy bureaucrats" anonymously on the web.

Sent by Benjamin Haag | 6:24 PM ET | 11-01-2007

I agree - I should not have to pay the President when hes an utter moron.

Sent by Elizabeth Dehart | 6:32 PM ET | 11-01-2007

I am a dedicated and proud public servant with a committed sense of duty to my country unless of course it involves work that I consider risky, inconvenient, controversial, or may prevent me from stopping by Starbucks for a latte on my way into the office.

Sent by mike | 6:33 PM ET | 11-01-2007

I believe that any person proposing and/or starting a war should immediately be required by law to be the first to go to the fighting front for a minimum of 1 year, and not allowed any excuses to be exempted other than death. This would bring wars to a screeching halt.

Sent by BRSines | 6:43 PM ET | 11-01-2007

Unfortunately the war in Iraq and the global war on terror will not be won by troop strength alone. Military might is just a component in a winning strategy - providing security mainly. What Iraq needs is exactly what the State Department should be able to bring to the fight - beurocratic know how of the worlds strongest democracy. Those unwilling to serve that role in Iraq are only strengthening the insurgents belief that if they wait long enough America will lose it's resolve and they will have their way. The Iraqi populace is still on the fence as to who will be victorious - a Sunni insurgancy, or the US backed Iraqi government. State Department employees unwilling to do their job should be replaced. Since when did asking people to do their job become "forcing" people to do their job. Iraq's security is not just good for the Iraqi people, but also good for the "veteran diplomat's" kids that he seems so worried about.

Sent by Craig P. | 6:47 PM ET | 11-01-2007

Of course, they should not be forced to go. Anyone who does not recognize how far down the wrong path this administration has taken the country, is willingfully ignorant.

Just as big a question that should be getting asked is: What in the world is the justification for creating this super embassy in a nation of 26 million people? And where are the Democrats, once again, in not, at the very least, speaking out in protest over such a travesty.

Sent by Tim FLynn | 6:52 PM ET | 11-01-2007

When you accept a position with the State Dept., Part of the deal is you go where they send you.Period. If I worked for State, yes I would volunteer, whether or not I believe in the war. It is part of the job.

Sent by phil Jessett | 7:28 PM ET | 11-01-2007

Harry Thomas' performance today was one of the most disgraceful I have heard from a government bureaucrat in a long time, with the haughty, morally superior tone in which he tried to embarrass and insult the journalists and opponents of his party line. No surprise he got booed. It would have been hard to take the side of the State Department given the circumstances in Irak, and he made matters much worse. The government needs to learn to listen to dissent, and nobody in the Bush administration seems to know that.

Sent by Tomistocles | 7:31 PM ET | 11-01-2007

There is a huge difference between having a diplomatic state job vs. enlisting in the military. The diplomats who might be asked to go to Iraq can complain all they want, but at the end of the day, they do not have to go. You cannot force someone who takes a job to put their lives at risk. Those who join the military do and they know that when they enlist. So for us to expect the diplomats to go to Iraq is an absurd argument. But on the other token, they shouldn't be expected to keep their job if they refuse to go.

Sent by Mike | 7:42 PM ET | 11-01-2007

Rob M. -
Diplomats can not prevent the President of the United States from going to war. And no, they won't "reap what they've sown" -- unfortunately the U.S. military personnel will pay the price, because we have a degenerate thug for a President.

Sent by Rob M. wise up | 7:48 PM ET | 11-01-2007

Despite the perception of the comments on this blog, diplomats have and continue to volunteer to serve in plenty of dangerous situations. Coups in Haiti, civil unrest in Cote d'Ivoire, bombings at the embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, civil wars ins the DRC, hostages in Iran, killed in Syria, the list goes on and on. The perception that Diplomats can only handle "cushy jobs" in magnificent palaces is simply wrong. Diplomats are injured, killed, kidnapped, contract diseases like dengue fever, malaria, and end up with intestinal parasites and respiratory problems from breathing in human waste. Many have volunteered to go into the roughest of places or stay in the roughest of places when Embassies are drawn down due to violence. The bigger issue here is sending people into a warzone without training and not giving them the support they need when they get back. It is about finding out that they are potentially being ordered to Iraq or any other dangerous posting via the Washington Post. We wouldn't consider sending our soldiers in to a warzone without training, yet that is what we are asking of diplomats who go to a PRT with little more than a helmet and a vest.

Sent by LLSmith | 9:49 PM ET | 11-01-2007

Indeed .. if their countrymen call them to duty, they should go, or relinquish their post to someone who will do the job. This just smacks of the usual political bull crapola slung around by those who like the perqs but don't want to do the job. Its ok for our sons and daughters to go (to Iraq) .. but not the fat bureaucrats. Who is gonna take care of our grandkids if some thing happens to one of our sons and daughters? WE WILL. This is a moot point --- diplomats and other officials are no different from the rest of us. Do your jobs or get out. End of story.

Sent by Dolphyn | 10:13 PM ET | 11-01-2007

the blog to you by DV Koch is right on. the embassy should probably be shut down in this lost endeavor; any foreign service worker should be able to volunteer to go (the pay must be great!)and not forced.When will the Bush admin. get the message to get out of Iraq? this "revolt" might help!

Sent by j. tarr | 3:49 AM ET | 11-02-2007

Four words: instruments of national power, otherwise known as DEIM. The first is diplomacy. Only after taking serious diplomatic measures do you go to economic measures, then information measures, and the last resort is to call in the military to resolve an international crisis. When the military is called in, you must continue to employ each of the other three instruments, even more so, in order to reinforce the military involvement and secure the greatest chance for success in resolving the crisis. Service is service, whether it is in the military or the State Department. If our diplomats don't want to go to Iraq or anywhere where they might be put into harm's way, then they should rethink their commitment to serving the country, period.

Sent by SGB | 7:37 AM ET | 11-02-2007

Every single day thousands of military men and women are sent overseas. Many of them do not want to go either. Many of them do not agree with the mission they are sent to do, but they go and they do their job. It is absolutely shameful that after four years of war our diplomates finally are coming to the realization that Iraq is a dangerous place for anyone to go. I have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. I can tell you for a fact that people in the Green Zone are some of the best protected in all of Iraq. Shame on you, Croddy and the rest of you cowards! Like members of the military you took an oath to serve this country, not at your convience, but when we need you. No one can keep you from resigning from the State Department and I'm sure, given your lack of commitment, many would be happy to see you go!

Sent by M. Martin | 9:24 AM ET | 11-02-2007

Hey, what is the problem here? After close to a trillion dollars, 4,000 US soldier's lives, 30,000 seriously wounded, we have everything under control now, right? Forget the Green Zone, come on out and open up a government office in downtown Baghdad.

Sent by john taylor | 10:13 AM ET | 11-02-2007

I believe the Civilian Master in Iraq belongs to the State Department. The service there should be sought after rather than avoided. As a career military person I would not have avoided service in a war zone if I could have. It was my duty. Career state department personnel should recognize that we are at war. It is their duty regardless of their likes or dislikes. State Department types who do not support the troops or share the same risks should get out of the business (or hire some NGO to tuck them in at night). The military is doing their job. It is time for others to step up to the plate and make recent gains permanent.

Sent by Richard in Kansas | 10:18 AM ET | 11-02-2007

At least that half of the US citizens who voted this imbecil Bush into office is much WORSE than my parents who voted for Hitler in the 30th. At least they had a very real depression and no food and shelter - Burger-fattened and TV stupidified US has no such excuse. It is sickening to read that NOBODY sees the root of this and at least TRIES to impeach that disgrace of a "poltician". Very soon you wont be able to do this any more, he has already instated his empowerment act - as Hitler did right after taking office. Good luck America!

Sent by sam in hamburg/germany | 2:07 PM ET | 11-02-2007

Thank you, Sam in Hamburg. He sees the truth. The Neocons, aka Fascists have created what they wanted. Now these idiots want to "take it to" Iran. Sieg Heil, you bastards. IMPEACH Bush and Cheney, ASAP. Before they create what Hitler did in 1939, so Germany could invade Poland, " a Incident", just inside Germany at a German Radio station by "Polish troops", at least they were dressed as Polish troops.
Beware of what happens prior to the 2008 election.

Sent by CA | 7:17 PM ET | 11-02-2007

there are more musicians in the military than diplomats or lawyers for that matter, the problem here is the continuation of a complete lack of planning and crippling incompetence of this administration at all levels; if you need more diplomats in the pipeline to staff our largest embassy that is also in a war zone, then Congress should appropriate the necessary funds--a miniscule drop in the bucket compared to other federal agency budgets--and create the pool of needed personnel; it is more than ironic that when the diplomats--that is some one with a scintilla of knowledge of the history of the area and language--were needed most, this administration sent ideologies over who cared little about the history or people and more about the concept of "planting democracy" and we know this turned out, whether diplomats go or don't go is really a minor issue when stacked against the colossal--that didn't have to be--failure of this Administration in all levels of planning for the aftermath of the war

Sent by jon | 8:47 PM ET | 11-02-2007

Let's put the size of the Foreign Service in perspective. The U.S. active- duty military is 119 times larger than the Foreign Service. The total uniformed military (active and reserve) is 217 times larger. A typical U.S. Army division is larger than the entire Foreign Service. The military has more uniformed personnel in Mississippi than the State Department has diplomats worldwide. The military has more full colonels/Navy captains than the State Department has diplomats. The military has more band members than the State Department has diplomats. The Defense Department has almost as many lawyers as the State Department has diplomats. Then there's the obvious huge disparities in operating budgets, which are widely known.

There are some completely practical considerations that make the personal-risk calculation for diplomats different from their military counterparts. For instance, a Foreign Service officer's life insurance policy becomes null and void in a combat zone -- a big deal for someone with a family to support.

Sent by Kilter | 2:08 PM ET | 11-03-2007