US State Department Foreign Service: Don't Send Us To Iraq - There's No Booze!

If there is one person alive who I believe bears major responsibility for the US failure in Vietnam, it is former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.

It was Kissinger who was advising Richard Nixon when he prematurely announced US troop withdrawals in 1969, putting an end to efforts by the defeated North Vietnamese military to convince their communist bosses to initiate surrender talks. It was Kissinger, who totally ignored, or misrepresented, the enormity of the South Vietnamese victory over the invading communists in the Easter invasion of 1972, which should have convinced America of the viability of standing by our ally.

It was Kissinger, Mr. Secretary of State, who forced the South Vietnamese to accept totally unacceptable provisions in the Paris Peace Accords in 1973. It was Kissinger who agreed to a pact with the north that saved the communist government when our bombing campaign had brought them, by their own admission, to within one or two days of total collapse.

It was Henry Kissinger who knew of, but ignored, the imprisonment of some 300 American Prisoners of War held by the communist Pathet Lao in Laos, many of whom were known to be alive and still in captivity decades later, and who have not be accounted for to this very day!

When South Vietnam fell to the communists, followed by Cambodia and Laos, Kissinger was still in DC. It was the Kissinger State Department that set the model for blame shifting and finger pointing, taking the lead in the Big Lie that the fall of South Vietnam was a military defeat, when in truth it was a political and diplomatic defeat.

Last week evidence surfaced that the Kissinger-trained State Department still exists, may even be thriving in fact. A group of career Foreign Service Officers, afraid that they may have to serve in Iraq, denounced a directive from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that she will resort to assigning personnel there if enough don't volunteer.

The media focused on a diplomat identified as Jack Croddy who mewled, "Who will take care of our children?" That was right after his edict that service in Iraq is "a death sentence" for the American diplomatic corps.

For the record, Fox News Sunday reported that since the beginning of the Battle for Iraq in the War on Terror, a total of three diplomatic personnel have died there, including two security guards. I might be wrong but I believe that the chances of American diplomats falling to illness or DC rush-hour traffic are higher than being killed by terrorists in Iraq.

FNS panelist Bill Kristol noted that a serviceman had emailed him to discuss the relative danger to diplomats serving in Baghdad's Green Zone, where our troops serving in Iraq are sent for R&R!

Our diplomats. What a bunch of candy-assed, dandified, elitist leeches.

Croddy and his buddies whimper about child care while our troops, whose lives are equally disrupted, take child-care issues in stride, shoulder the burden, and march out to save democracy. Meanwhile, the diplomatic corps, instead of working in tandem with them on the diplomatic side, stage a press conference to complain that they are uncomfortable with this situation.

No wonder America's enemies and allies alike think this country is soft, weak, sissified, and incompetent. All they see is the diplomatic corps, which according to last week's reprehensible display, is soft, weak, sissified and incompetent.

"Oh, Mr. President. I can't serve there", whine, whine, sniffle, sniffle, "I don't agree with your policies."

This is a classic example of the elitism in our government of which I so often complain. These clowns took an oath to serve, much as our servicemen and women do. To the best of my knowledge, these oaths don't have escape clauses that nullify them if the conditions of service don't suit the individual who took the oath.

Fox News anchor and commentator Brit Hume referred to the diplomatic corps as the "striped pants crowd," a reference to embassy black tie cocktail parties that apparently are a much more coveted aspect of the job than actually serving our country. Kristol called Croddy's comments "a disgraceful statement" and I could not agree more.

As usual, Juan Williams stuck up for the embassy crowd, comparing Iraq to Vietnam, which he should if he only knew the real history instead of communist sound bites and propaganda. He said that members of Congress, who overwhelmingly authorized the invasion of Iraq, don't have any family members serving there, just as no one in Congress had any family members serving in Vietnam.

But as Brit Hume pointed out, Williams also is wrong, once again. Most of America is not serving - not in Iraq, not in the military, not serving period. The country has a population of 300 million, and fewer than 2.5 million, or less than 1 percent, are serving in the military anywhere in any capacity.

There are fewer than 600 members of Congress, rounding up, so if even 7 members, or family members have served, that far exceeds the national average. So there.

Let's see, both James Webb and Duncan Hunter have sons serving or who did serve in Iraq. That's two, five to go.

Not exactly on the same page as Williams, but at least reading from the same book, was Mara Liasson, who says last week's embarrassment is an indication that our State Department is stretched too thin! Is she kidding?

Well, maybe that's a good thing. Fewer people around complaining over their cocktails about how hard they have it, and screwing things up with their whining.

Wait a minute, wait a minute. I think I just stumbled onto something here. These malingerers aren't whining about service in Iraq being dangerous. They're pissed off because they won't be able to have cocktail parties in a Muslim country.

They are afraid that they'll have to give up their Gin Rickey's, gin martinis and gin blossoms.

But there may be a way out of this. One of their biggest supporters in Congress is Ted Kennedy and we all know where that family got its money. Yes sir! Bootlegging booze during Prohibition.

Maybe we can ask the good Senator from Massachusetts to help out. We could set up a meeting between some diplomats and either Kennedy or his appointed representative, break out the family bootlegging archives, and figure out how to smuggle booze into the Green Zone disguised as something else so they can continue doing their diplomatic thing in their usual alcoholic fog.

I have a suggestion. Diplomatic pouches - full of hooch. They could expand the number of couriers coming in by 100 or so a day, and double the size of the diplomatic pouches so they could hold two or three bottles of the good stuff each.

Within a month they could have one hell of a bar set up in the basement of the American embassy. The Foreign Service Officers would be happy, the personnel shortage would go away and no one would be the wiser. No I mean, that. No one would be the wiser.

You can take a look at a minimum of 60 years of diplomatic screw ups going back to WWII and see that they had to have been drunk on the job. Why else would we have given over all of Eastern Europe to the Russians at the end of World War II, unless the diplomatic corps was toasted during the negotiations? How else do you explain Korea, Southeast Asia and on and on and on?

Yeah, we can smuggle in the booze, the diplomatic corps will blunder on just like it always has, the military will win the war, set the conditions for peace, and no one will be the wiser.

You guys should call me more often when you hit impasses like this. Finding a way to resolve impossible situations is what I do best. Really. Call me.