- Thread starter
- #41
I believe the main reason for the diplomat's objection to serving in Iraq (at this point in time) was that it's tantamount to a death sentence.
If memory serves, not long after the insurgency surfaced UN diplomats were killed and so were red cross workers. The UN pulled it's mission out and as far as I know has not reinstated it. Journalists were also kidnapped and killed.
So, the concern of the diplomats is valid. They would be prime targets for bombing, kidnapping, beheading, et al just because of their propaganda value to the muslim world and to show the US can't protect anything from their onslaught.
If a group of these diplomats were massacred would the US replace them with more fodder or tough it out?
I, for one wouldn't volunteer, but if called would serve or resign.
However, at this juncture I think it foolhardy for the US Department of State to put these people in harms way when there is not any real need for them, yet.
Well except not ONE has been killed there yet. Not one has been kidnapped. Not one has "had a death sentence" there yet. And they have been serving there the whole time.
As for the UN they got attacked and killed because they refused to take adequate security measures. Refused to allow the US military to guard or help them and relied solely on Iraqi contractors for protection.
It is simple, these people actively sought out work at the State Department and I am quite sure they knew going in or learned shortly after signing up the duty required services in dangerous areas of the world. It always has and until the return of Jesus as King it always will. They don't want to serve, fine, QUIT. Publicly whining about the job they all thought was cushy enough until ordered to actually do the job is bullshit. Trying to use public opinion to protect them from preforming a job they signed up for is unethical and ignorant. It is cowardly.