Alarm bells are ignored

Jan.10, 2008

Alarm bells are ignored

AT A time when US President George W Bush is paying a high-profile visit to the Middle East against the backdrop of the worsening crisis in Iraq, the American Foreign Service Association says that nearly half of US diplomats unwilling to volunteer to work in Iraq say one reason for their refusal is they do not agree with Bush administration's policies in the country.
According to a survey conducted by the American Foreign Service Association, security concerns and separation from family ranked as the top reasons for not wanting to serve in Iraq. But 48 per cent cited "disagreement" with administration policy as a factor in their opposition.
The survey was conducted late last year among the 11,500 members of the US diplomatic corps and found deep frustration among more than 4,300 respondents over Iraq, safety and security issues elsewhere, pay disparities and the leadership of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her top deputies.
Nearly 70 per cent of US diplomats who responded to the survey oppose forced assignments to Iraq, a prospect that was raised by the State Department with an implicit warning issued last year that those who do not accept to serve in Iraq could face disciplinary measures.
Of course, the State Department has that option, and many diplomats could face no choice but to serve in Iraq if they were to keep their jobs. However, how effectively they would perform under such conditions and in the chaotic atmosphere in Iraq is a major question, and this clearly points to non-accomplishment of US foreign policy objectives in the country.
Beyond the human elements at play in the diplomats' refusal to serve in Iraq, the American Foreign Service Association survey has brought out a very significant aspect of the workings of the Bush administration: Heavy dissent in its diplomatic ranks against its policies.
That should be seen coupled with the obvious dissent in the US intelligence community that emerged to the surface with the release of the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), which pulled the rug from under the administration's "case" against Iran.
But the Bush administration is brushing aside the dissent in the diplomatic and intelligence communities as if a handful of people at the helm of affairs know better. Abandoned on the fringes are veteran diplomats and intelligence experts whose decades of experience are ringing loud warning bells against the course followed by the administration. Surely, that in itself is unprecedented in US history and gives rise to the certainty that we have yet to see more dramatic developments before Bush leaves office in January 2009.