Diplomats Now Scrambling For Iraq Jobs

Follow up on an earlier story...
Duncan Hunter solves problems.
He doesn't need 14 committees and 23 focus groups to do it either.





Example:
Remember a couple of weeks ago when the US Diplomats were refusing to go on assignments and serve in Iraq?
Duncan Hunter knew of qualified men who would be proud to fill that role and continue serving their country in the process and suggested that we FIRE all of the Diplomats that refused to serve.

Well surprise surprise surprise, now we have a story reporting that nearly half of the open positions have been suddenly accepted by the current 'refusing' Diplomats and the rest are expected to be filled shortly... (or else).

By AMY DOOLITTLE

November 12, 2007

Foreign Service officers by late last week had volunteered for about half of the 48 Iraq posts that need to be filled next year, according to State Department sources, prompting speculation the department may not need to resort to the directed assignments it threatened.

About 200 mid- to upper-level officers were notified last month that they could be called to serve one-year deployments in Iraq if they don’t volunteer. The department said it needs to find 48 volunteers by Nov. 13 or it will issue directed assignments to fill the vacancies.

A department spokeswoman said State will announce this week how many volunteers it has and whether directed assignments will be necessary.

Some officers have said they would quit or retire rather than accept a directed assignment to a post in Iraq. Only officers with serious medical conditions or who lack the proper clearance can be excused — others who refuse to go could be fired.

Some lawmakers were adamant that State should continue to operate on a volunteer basis, no matter what the cost. Rep. Christopher Smith, R-N.J., a top minority member on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said Congress should increase cash incentives to officers to keep it that way.

“If additional incentives are needed, maybe that’s what we need to consider,” he said. “I don’t think we should put people in the position of going or retiring. I think volunteering with perhaps some significant incentives would work.”

Currently, Foreign Services officers deployed to Iraq receive danger and hardship pay totaling 70 percent of their basic salary. Many also earn additional pay for working long days and weekends.

Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., ranking member on the House Armed Services Committee, said he has little sympathy for Foreign Service officers who are resisting the call to serve in Iraq. Reluctant State employees should be replaced with wounded warriors recovering at Walter Reed and Bethesda medical centers, he said.

“When the State Department appears to be filled with reluctant personnel, let’s turn to those who have bravely followed the American flag in the most dangerous of assignments,” Hunter said.

“They are veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan theaters and you can be sure that when called on for difficult assignments, they won’t convene a town meeting to protest. Especially for those whose mobility has been impaired by wounds, State Department positions — not only in Baghdad but around the world — will provide excellent jobs as well as avail our nation of their enormous talent.”

Interesting that there is no mention by DOOLITTLE that Duncan Hunter is a Republican Presidential candidate, you can bet if Hillary had come up with this plan, the word "Presidential" would have been applied frequently and liberally.

Of course those on the left called Hunter an idiot for his ultimately effective and clever recommendation.

Getting things done, quietly and efficiently... Duncan Hunter08 for President.