Last week the Foreign Service announced at a town hall meeting that it would begin assigning employees to Iraq on a non-volunteer basis, essentially ordering them to Iraq. The announcement was met with protest from the assembled Foreign Service Officers, including one who said that service in Iraq was "a potential death sentence,” and that “any other embassy in the world would be closed by now." [Washington Post, 01 Nov 07]

Certainly Foreign Service Officers cannot be blamed for being hesitant to deploy to a combat zone. And certainly this sentiment is shared by the thousands of soldiers or other civilians who travel to Iraq each year in service of our country.

The Department of State website states that Foreign Service Officers (FSOs) “advocate American foreign policy, protect American citizens, and promote American business interests throughout the world. Their perceptiveness, dedication, and creativity drive the formulation and achievement of American foreign policy objectives. Increasingly, transnational issues…have gained stature among American foreign policy objectives.”

Current American policy in Iraq is centered on standing up the Iraqi government and military so that they can take responsibility for their own security and administration. For the military, sending troops to fill training billets in Iraq is one of the top manpower concerns. And by many accounts the Iraqi military is responding positively, albeit slowly.

The State Department has a function that is exactly opposite of the Defense Department: the support, facilitation, and advancement of foreign countries, with the intention of creating beneficial alliances or positive impact for foreign populations. While soldiers are out in the towns training Iraqi policemen, FSOs need to be working with Iraqi leaders and politicians to create the kind of representative government that can successfully sustain Iraq. In the case of Iraq, the Foreign Service is an integral and essential part of American foreign policy.


The Foreign Service Officers’ protesting of Iraq deployments essentially boils down to people trying to save their skins while sugar coating it as a moral objection. A military service member who believes that service in Iraq is immoral, illegal, or just plain too dangerous can refuse to go, however (s)he will be tried by court martial and will likely spend a short time in a military jail before being dishonorably discharged. But Foreign Service Officers can quit their jobs without recompense. The difference here is that the Foreign Service Officers want to keep their retirement checks and stay out of danger.

Being in the Foreign Service is service to our country. It’s not study abroad, and it’s not summer camp. It might have its share of unique and enjoyable rewards, but it comes with responsibility, an oath to the Constitution, and it demands sacrifice.


As is typical, once this news story broke, Congress seized the opportunity to wax philosophic without actually doing anything about the issue. Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA), a veteran and the senior Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, issued a clever statement saying: "Let's replace these reluctant Nellies with America's finest citizens. Our wounded warriors will serve our country efficiently, effectively and with undying patriotism."

I don’t know how many disabled veterans would take the job, but the prospect of sending people with courage to do a job requiring it makes sense. I can only hope that Foreign Service Officers can see that their country is calling them in the hour of need, and too much American blood has been spilled for them to be squeamish when they are called.


Further Reading: Washington Post Seattle Post-Intelligencer