Header
Injured Diplomats Get Little Support
 By Tom Shoop | Wednesday, November 21, 2007  |  09:57 AM

Jeff Klein of CQ Homeland Security notes one reason diplomats didn't respond with relish to the notion of forced assignments to Iraq: "Wrecked physically and mentally from terrorist attacks or duty in combat zones," he writes, "State Department employees from senior diplomats on down to foreign aid workers say they have too often had to fend for themselves when they were hurt."

GovExec's Alyssa Rosenberg reported on this issue back in August, as did Brittany Ballenstedt in June.

While we're at it, here's some more perspective on the whole issue of directed assignments, courtesy of commenter Doug Ellrich on a previous item I wrote:

There is a lot of misinformation about this issue. Not one single FSO has refused, or even attempted to refuse an assignment to Iraq. There is just no truth to that belief. Sending FSOs to Iraq cannot be compared to sending soldiers and sailors to Iraq. DOD creates an entire cacoon around their people that includes families. DoD families live in familiar communities for several years while the soldier is deployed. They go to familiar schools, are supported by extensive social support systems. FSOs families will be relocating for the year of the Iraq assignment, attending unfamiliar schools in unfamiliar communities. Nothing like what DoD provides exists for the FSO families who are left behind. Most of the concern from FSOs has nothing to do with their personal safety or desire to serve in Iraq, it's usually about specific family situations. Only 16% of the military has served or ever will serve in Iraq and Afghanistan. Already 25% of all FSOs have served in Iraq or/and Afghanistan, and the number will go higher as time goes by. That doesn't even include the FSOs who go to all the other dangerous posts abroad and leave their families behind. 65% of the FSOs are abroad serving, mostly in dangerous posts. Only 16% of uniformed personnel are overseas at any one time. DoD is so huge compared to the Foreign Service. It has more bandmembers than there are members of the Foreign Service total. If the State Department had as extensive a support system for families left behind as DoD does, there would be less concern. But in any case, FSOs do serve, they don't refuse, and that will always be the case.


Comments


the dod does very little to protect the families of soldiers serving in iraq. the problem is they are fighting off too many attacks from american government and american religous groups and just stupid americans to be able to provide and real protection from the families of american troops.

anonamous  | Sunday, February 17, 2008 |  09:25 AM


dear crabby if you are ordered into the combat zone you are in the military. if you are not and you get injured your a greedy dumb-ass who should have turned down the job and took a pay cut to go work somewhere else. so go take that fat check your getting and cut in in four use one third to live off of and the other 3 fourths to by some really good insurance like the soldiers in the military have.

anonamous  | Sunday, February 17, 2008 |  09:25 AM


the dod does very little to protect the families of soldiers serving in iraq. the problem is they are fighting off too many attacks from american government and american religous groups and just stupid americans to be able to provide and real protection from the families of american troops.

anonamous  | Sunday, February 17, 2008 |  09:07 AM


Ok let me see if I can make it easy for wallyp and bendtgirl. It obvious how the 16% was calculated 150,000 divided by the 900,000 active duty marines and army So the stop loss comments and the use of statistacal data ? should help you realize your errors. As I said earlier Rosenberg needs to write about what he knows and stop trying to equate a civilian sector job to the military there is no collory. I often hears feather merchants saying their GS pay grade is equalivant to a Col or General or a Major your not and never will be.
As to the military setting up family support these are all volunteers, if State wants them as well start volunteering to help each other.
A housing allowance is just that part of the military pay, however it isn't used to calculate their retirement pay. Would you be willing to give up a portion of your retirement plan?? I think not.
Finally as to health care and workmans comp, how do you folks differ from the Blackwater folks, that's all they have.
Unfortunatly their are too many folks in State who think they are royality and need to be treated that way. On more than 1 occasion we had to emergency evuacate a diplomat out of country cause they killed someone so the would not be proscuted. Ask some 18 year old severing in Iraq or Afgan what his rights are = 0

dan ketter  | Monday, November 26, 2007 |  02:15 PM


Amazing to compare the service of the military in the world's hot spots (Iraq and Afghanistan) and then mention all the other dangerous places FSOs serve... Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paulo are places that come to mind after my tour with State where pay is increased, world class housing provided (no utilities that are not reimbursed, enough differential pay to hire a maid (or two), and free private schooling...hard to find a military service that does that for 150,000 troops...one could say impossible.

Rick  | Monday, November 26, 2007 |  10:10 AM


"16% of the military has served or ever will serve in Iraq and Afghanistan" almost certainly means that of all the individuals in the armed forces, only 16% served in Iraq OR Afghanistan (technically, "and" means that only 16% have been to both places). Saying that because we average 150,000 for five years there have been 750,000 troops there ignores the multiple assignments of many of them. It also ignores the large numbers of people who joined and left the military during that same period. You can doubt someone's statistics -- I find it hard to believe the 16% figure myself -- but if you want to make an argument against the statistic use meaningful data.

Military personnel injured in Iraq have VA disability, not workmen's compensation. Sure, workmen's compensation applies to all civilians (though programs vary from state to state and vary from the Federal program), but the benefits for permanent total disability are nowhere near what the VA benefits are, and do you really think workmen's compensation is going to pay for the advanced prosthetics that are being made available to injured military personnel? If I am ordered into a combat zone, shouldn't I get the same medical benefits as the soldier if I am injured.

Deployed units set up all kinds of family support groups to help those left at home. The wives and children are not sent out into the cold and left to fend for themselves.

QUESTION: Does private life insurance cover someone killed in Iraq, or are "act of war" exclusions applicable?

QUESTION: Any authority for your statement that families lose their military housing when there is a deployment? I could not find a single newspaper article saying that happened?

wallyp  | Monday, November 26, 2007 |  08:22 AM


Mr. Ketter, you're wrong on a number of accounts.

Stop loss has assisted in the numbers of troops being rotated in and out to be significantly lower than the number you're referring to. Most of the servicemembers and veterans I speak to have served at least 1 term in Iraq and are heading back for their 2nd. A smaller number are on their 3rd tour.

Also, dependants do not lose base housing when provided, however, few bases require soldiers and their families to live on base. Instead, a housing allowance is provided to the members.

My FSO friends do not get anywhere near the services that the military does. They often serve in hostile areas.

There are major differences between the military and the state department, what you're missing is that FSOs are serving in hostile areas and do so not simply because it's their job, but because they want to serve their country. Do not denegrate their service just because it isn't in the color of uniform you think they should wear.

Bendygirl  | Monday, November 26, 2007 |  07:58 AM


Dear crabby, workman's comp is there for ALL civilians. If you want military support join up the marines and army are hiring. Other wise be thankfull you have men and women in uniform cause you can't carry their jock strap

dan ketter  | Friday, November 23, 2007 |  04:27 PM


Well mister dip-cheese diplomat your the reason we are in Iraq to begin with. Just be one of us poor old Civil servants and get injured. We have to go thru Workman's Comp for anything. That means a lawyer if you need any thing. So quit crying and start talking to get us out of Iraq.

Crabber  | Wednesday, November 21, 2007 |  03:31 PM


Doug should write about what he knows it obvious he doesn't know squat about the military. There is no cocoon for dependents, they loose base housing, they have to stay in the local area because their is no relocation money spent on them.
As to the military band comment at least they can carry a tune, I would like to know what the accomplishments that FSO's officer have made in the last 10 years.
16% have served in Iraq and Afgan, now how does he get the math, we average 150,000 trops over there at any one time, we've been there for 5 years. That's 750,000 troops, just how big does he think the military is??

dan ketter  | Wednesday, November 21, 2007 |  02:17 PM


Only 16% of the military has served or ever will serve in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Is that the military over the last 200 years or the current force (plus or minus 4 years)?

Can that possibly be true?

US  | Wednesday, November 21, 2007 |  10:49 AM



Post a comment



ABOUT THIS BLOG


Government Executive Editor Tom Shoop takes a look at news and events affecting the federal bureaucracy, from the perspective of a longtime observer of government.

SEARCH THIS BLOG


SUBSCRIBE to this blog's RSS feed

ARCHIVES



CATEGORIES