NEW: Follow the Editorial Staff on
StrategyPage Twitter Link


GROUND COMBAT +

AIR COMBAT +

NAVAL OPERATIONS +

SPECIAL OPERATIONS +

HUMAN FACTORS +

SPECIAL WEAPONS +

WARFARE BY THE NUMBERS +

LOGISTICS +

TOOLS +


Visit StrategyPage's US Cavalry Store



Morale Article Index : Current 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics

Please, No, Anything But That

July 1, 2009: First it was U.S. State Department personnel trying to avoid service in Iraq, now the DEA (Drug Enforcement Agency) is having a similar resistance to service in Afghanistan. It's mostly DEA pilots who are reluctant to fly in Afghanistan. While these pilots sign on with the understanding that they might have to serve in dangerous places (like Colombia), Afghanistan is seen as particularly dangerous. Then again, maybe not. DEA personnel complain that volunteers for Afghan duty are being turned away so that management can send people to Afghanistan as punishment. This accusation was denied by DEA management.

This is not the first time this sort of thing has happened. Back in 2007, at the height of the fighting, the State Department had 5,000 people assigned there, although only 20 percent of them were Americans. The problem, according to the State Department, is that they could not get enough qualified diplomats to work in Baghdad. As a result, they didn't have the resources to get out and do the job. Many members of Congress were incredulous. Moreover, military people who have had contact with the embassy staff found the diplomatic personnel to be inept whiners who didn't seem to have a clue. The State Department respond that the troops are a bunch of oafish brutes who didn't know what they are doing (in the diplomacy department), even though they are out among the Iraqis all the time.

Congress tends to side with the troops, which caused much angst in the State Department. Everyone agrees that many of the most qualified State Department people were avoiding duty in Iraq. The reasons mainly had to do with the danger (if they got outside the Green Zone, which many avoided doing), and the frustration of dealing with the corruption and hatreds found in Iraq (and typical of the entire Arab world, but submerged under hospitality and good manners in most places.) The State Department people also resented how successful many of the troops had been at doing their jobs (working with Iraqis and getting things done.) It's a culture clash that goes way back. No solution is in sight, and a major reason why State Department people don't like to work in areas where the Department of Defense crew has a lot of clout.

submit to reddit
Send Link to a Friend
Next Article MURPHY'S LAW: All Your Landmines Are Belong To Us


Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2
Bob Cortez       7/1/2009 7:17:44 AM
It worse than that.  Often State types will force policies that put the troops at risk, while they are safe. 
 
As to DEA, it is one thing to scare civilians, quite another when you face fighting adults: the NKVD discovered that truth on the Eastern Front, melting before the Wehrnacht like a morning mist.
 
Quote    Reply

Ispose    RE: State Dept Weenies   7/1/2009 10:09:08 AM
Order the qualified ones to go and if they refuse fire their ass....they're US Gov't employees and they go where they are told or get the hell out and give the job to someone who will do it.
 
Quote    Reply

arodrig6       7/1/2009 11:46:53 AM

Order the qualified ones to go and if they refuse fire their ass....they're US Gov't employees and they go where they are told or get the hell out and give the job to someone who will do it.

Might not be that easy. A well qualified state department employee might be able to find a job in the civilian sector at much better pay (and much safer). Losing your top people puts the State Dept. in a bad position in all of the other areas it operates.
 
Quote    Reply

Headlock       7/1/2009 12:40:16 PM

It worse than that.  Often State types will force policies that put the troops at risk, while they are safe. 

 

As to DEA, it is one thing to scare civilians, quite another when you face fighting adults: the NKVD discovered that truth on the Eastern Front, melting before the Wehrnacht like a morning mist.

DEA = NKVD?   Thats a new one.

 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Diplomats without guts    7/1/2009 12:57:40 PM



Order the qualified ones to go and if they refuse fire their ass....they're US Gov't employees and they go where they are told or get the hell out and give the job to someone who will do it.





Might not be that easy. A well qualified state department employee might be able to find a job in the civilian sector at much better pay (and much safer). Losing your top people puts the State Dept. in a bad position in all of the other areas it operates.
are why we are in the mess we are in. Fire the cowardly incompetent bastards and recruit from our civil affairs troops.
 
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

Ispose    Herald   7/1/2009 1:43:02 PM
I'm with Herald on this....what if our troops said Afganistan was too dangerous and refused to go?.....They are Gov't employees not civilians....
I would also argue that if they refuse to go and do their jobs they are not our best and brightest so firing them would be no loss.
 
Quote    Reply

Photon       7/1/2009 3:22:04 PM
Based on post-WW2 history of US foreign policy, how about truncating the State Dept. then have it subordinated to the DoD?  Makes a sense, considering the 'meat' of US foreign policy implimentation has been centered on soldiers, not diplomats.  This is particularly the case with relations with 3rd world countries and out-of-the-way places.  The current State Dept. has been coming up short, whenever it ventured beyond the realm of fellow industrialized countries.  Not to mention that diplomats and their cocktail parties sort of game plan does not work in places that the US is most likely to get involved in the foreseenable future.  In rough places, 'bigger guns have the right of way'.
 
Or .... the State Dept. will have to undergo a reorganization and incorporate military and police powers under its own belt, thereby morphing into a DoD-lite.  Better yet, the State Dept. should have its own navy and air force, in case of the need to hand out humanitarian aid in times of natural crisis without having to depend on DoD.
 
Overall, I think this is a classic example of office-dwellers refusing to take a sober stock of what they can and cannot accomplish, and more interested in looking good and strong.  Perhaps even shrink the State Dept. the next time there is a large talk about reducing federal expenditures.
 
Quote    Reply

Lurch       7/1/2009 3:37:32 PM
When WAS the last BRAC in the State Department?   Oh wait, I'm confused again.
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       7/2/2009 2:16:00 AM

Fire the cowardly incompetent bastards and recruit from our civil affairs troops.

I'm mostly in agreement with Herald12345 on this (they are cowardly bastards, but potentially may have some degree of competency), but we need to do more to fix the problem.  The State Department has always been closely tied to the academic community, which keeps finding ways to farther and farther to left politically and is firmly anti-military, just look at some of the policy statements from academic associations calling on their members to refuse to provide ANY assistance to the military in Iraq and Afghanistan.

First, the State Department needs to have a mandatory quota set for all non-appointed civil service positions to be filled with military veterans at all levels (so they cannot just hire a bunch of security guards and janitors).
 
Second, for the purposes of academic employment, declare military veterans a protected minority and hit them with the full force of the rules and remedies that have been created by the EEOC and the courts.
 
Quote    Reply

oOOOo    Firepower   7/2/2009 8:05:27 AM
While I personally agree with the dim assessments of State Dept personnel, actually implementing any of the proposed remedies requires POLITICAL will and firepower that does not currently exist. To reform State, first we must reform Congress. And probably that goofy white house up the road from Congress as well.
 
Quote    Reply

Paul_In    "inept whiners..."   7/2/2009 11:30:07 AM
"... who didn't seem to have a clue"
 
God!  How many government agencies can be so described?
 
-
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       7/2/2009 8:24:05 PM

"... who didn't seem to have a clue"

God!  How many government agencies can be so described?


Don't ask me, I ran out of toes!
 
Quote    Reply

Dave_in_Pa       7/5/2009 11:47:29 AM
This problem of ambivalence within the State Dept. is a long-term problem. Too much recruitment from leftist universities and too much time spent outside the US, "going native", as it were.  At the outbreak of WW2, an exasperated President Roosevelt was quoted as saying, "The best we can hope for from the State Department in this war is a strict neutrality."
 
Quote    Reply

sjdoc    Decriminalize the damned drugs   7/6/2009 4:02:07 AM
--
Sorry to sound like Johnny One-Note, but this is yet another opportunity to make the case for ending Nixon's unconstitutional War on (Some) Drugs, which serves as a price support program to guarantee the Taliban an exorbitant margin of profit in their international drug dealing.  
 
Decriminalization (the federal government doesn't have the lawful authority to "legalize" trade in any commodity or service) would remove that price support, permitting the delivery cost of the junkie's daily fix to drop to damn' near that required by production and delivery.  No more profit margin than in the sale of a bottle of Aspirin (like Heroin, a Bayer trademarked product; always capitalize the "A" and the "H").
 
Think the Taliban can continue to operate on that narrow a margin of profit?
 
And for everyone out there hating the hell out of the DEA pilots for their cowardice, consider what we'll save when the whole friggin' DEA is RIF'd out of existence. 
 
Imagine them standing on the streetcorners, bearing cardboard signs reading: "Will Narc For Food."
 
Couldn't happen to a more deserving bunch of porkers-at-the-public-trough.
 
--
 
 
Quote    Reply

kirby1       7/7/2009 12:15:47 AM
The State Department is more F'ed up then a football bat, but at least theoretically serves a legit purpose. DEA and BATFE? Something about the both of them makes my skin crawl. Perhaps its because thier both so anticonstitutional its not even funny.
 
Interesting question: Why in Gods' green earth is the State dep escorted in country by private contractors? How in Gods green earth can you tell an Iraqi or Afghan official not to be corrupt when you have a private security guard standing over your shoulder who's getting paid the rough equivelant to thier towns' annual GDP?  How can you tell them that the US is trustworthy if you refuse to trust anyone in a US military uniform with your safety? I don't mind contractors and construction workers being guarded by Blackwater et al, but the State Department? Way to say "I'm too good to play with them." 
 
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: 1 2





New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy