Overlooked

After all the hand wringing, the embarrassment of a cathartic internal town hall meeting made public, the misinformed press stories about "soft diplomats," and the sometimes amateurish scramble by Human Resources to develop a policy and respond to concerns about directed assignments (the first time the Department had contemplated such a policy since the Vietnam War), it turns out there was no need for directed assignments after all.

By the way, that's from a State Department BLOG ENTRY. State has a BLOG. It's actually on a .gov site, even.

The author of this particular entry is Brian Heath, who adds

The Foreign Service I know and am proud to be a part of is an organization that invariably rises to meet a challenge. Indeed, more than 1,500 of my colleagues have served in Iraq since 2003. Three have been killed.

I am one of those who came forward in recent weeks and volunteered for assignment to Iraq, not because I received a letter euphemistically identifying me as a "prime candidate" (I didn't), but because I decided to take advantage of the opportunity to demonstrate to myself, the Department, and yes, even the Iraqi people, that my skills and talents could make a positive contribution in our combined efforts to bring stability to the country.

Believe it or not, now that we've pretty much won this damn thing militarily one aspect of one of the many erroneous claims the war's detractors have made repeatedly over the past year is becoming valid* - in many ways the Army has done all it can to lay the groundwork, to create an environment where others can thrive. What's needed now is less combat skill and more rebuilding.

This is not to say that Iraq is a safe place - just that it is fast becoming one. But make no mistake about it, if the troops were brought home tomorrow all hell would break lose, in a manner as yet unseen even in this part of the world. The next crucial step in creating the world where many of those troops can come home is exactly this - a steady inflow of folks with skillsets other than combat arms who can help create an environment where fewer guns are needed. We are at the entry point of an upward spiral; increased security sets the stage for improved quality of life for Iraqis which means less need for security forces to maintain that quality of life; without despair people have less incentive to sow chaos.

We may have had a similar opportunity in 2003. Some have made that claim, though I'm not certain it's accurate. I'm more certain that at the time there were those who were bound and determined to violently oppose any effort on the part of the coalition to bring about a free and democratic Iraq. Only now can we gauge the depth of that commitment in the vast majority of the members of that group: death or about 4.5 years, whichever comes first.

I believe many are hesitant to acknowledge our military victory in this conflict in recognition (or even expectation) that we can still reignite that flame (or even ignite it within those who have been steadfast in support of our efforts) with a few very stupid actions (or inactions) on our part over the coming weeks and months. In a nutshell, if we don't take advantage of this relative peace and charge very swiftly up that spiral we will lose all those gains, perhaps as quickly as some think we achieved them.

I admit that when I first heard the stories (recounted by many of my fellow milbloggers, in fact) of FSOs wetting their pants at the thought of serving in Iraq I was deeply concerned - but one thing I reminded myself at the time is the ability of journalists to find exactly the one quote from some maladjusted member that isn't representative of the majority of the group to which he can only pretend to belong and trumpet said quote as exactly that which it isn't. After all, they do it to the military all the time.

Actions from folks like Brian Heath confirm my impression, and give me renewed hope that we can and will make that charge.

(But more on how we can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory later.)

*But they were wrong then, and any post-facto claims of prescience should be dismissed as forthrightly as their original blunders, along with any claims that it's time to quit.