Dems slam diplomatic downsizing as untold cost of war in Iraq Jason Rhyne and Nick Juliano

Published: Monday December 17, 2007



del.icio.us

Print This Email This Lawmakers say war, not lack of funding, made cuts necessary Democratic presidential contender Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) and two senior members of the House Foreign Affairs committee are panning a planned slashing of the US diplomatic corps as a sad consequence of the war in Iraq. Following the reassignment of hundreds of foreign service officers to priority embassy positions in Afghanistan and Iraq, the director general of the US foreign service, Harry Thomas, last week instructed State Department officials to identify for elimination the "least critical" ten percent of diplomatic posts. As reported by the Washington Post, however, Congress has not allocated the additional funding to staff vacancies which account for almost one quarter of diplomatic positions around the world. But Democratic lawmakers suggest that the root of the problem lies with Iraq, where they say the high demand for qualified diplomats has created holes in the foreign service's presence elsewhere in the world. "Senator Obama believes the proposed cuts to diplomatic posts are unfortunate and prove another cost of the war in Iraq, and that is why he will end the war and renew American diplomacy," Obama spokeswoman Amy Brundage said in an email to RAW STORY . The senator has previously called for an expansion of the diplomatic corps. Thomas cited "severe staffing shortfalls" in a message to his department, according to the Post. "If we cannot realistically fill all of the positions currently vacant," he wrote, "good management dictates that we... focus on the most essential." Rep. Donald Payne (D-NJ), a senior member of the House Foreign Affairs committee, told RAW STORY that committee membership was not told in advance of the eliminated posts. "It was news to us when we saw the article in the paper," Payne said in a phone interview. "The favorable rating the US has always enjoyed has certainly plummeted around the world. To be reducing our diplomatic presence by ten percent is a drastic move in the wrong direction." Payne also characterized the decision as the unfortunate but "predictable" upshot of the war in Iraq. "They're definitely shifting personnel to Iraq in particular and also Afghanistan," he said. "It's another of the unintended consequences of the bad decision made to have that preemptive strike [in Iraq]...an unintended consequence as we've seen so many other ones." Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA), another senior member of House Foreign Affairs, agreed. "This is one of the unfortunate, if somewhat underreported, effects of the war in Iraq," Sherman said in a statement. "Our ability to advance our interests and deal with humanitarian crises elsewhere in the world is being hobbled. The fact that so many of our diplomats are required in Iraq is a symptom of this problem." From 2001 to 2004, the foreign service had expanded by about 300 positions annually, according to the Post, but Congress has recently curtailed funds for the increased hires. "We believe that...we had a justified need for those additional positions in those years," Patrick Kennedy, undersecretary of state for management, told the Post. "On the other hand, Congress has to make choices, and they made them. I'm not going to say they are the wrong choices." He added that the recent 10 percent cuts were not necessarily permanent. Asked about the potential of a boost in future funding from Congress to staff the posts, Payne said he couldn't offer a prediction. "We would have to certainly have a conversation with the Foreign Affairs chair and the [House Appropriations Committee]," he said. "They'll have to determine where the money would come from, and if it would have to be taken away from some other very critical programs."



