Move Condi's Office to Baghdad

At a party the other night, I met someone who worked at the State Department who asked me, "Why should I go to Iraq when the military hasn't done its job?" As an Iraq war veteran, the comment cut me like a knife; I mean, tell a double amputee that they didn't do their job in Iraq. Now I find that a number of State Department officials have not stepped up to go to Iraq, and, like this woman, are upset that they might be forced to go.

I'm sorry, but I have just one response for them: Boo Hoo. If you don't believe in the policy in Iraq, then leave the State Department to speak out. If you're too scared to go where you're needed, then resign. But, if you're serious about the oath you took to this nation, then suck it up and go to Iraq. And, Condoleezza Rice, this includes you. Let me explain.

The war in Iraq, is, as military philosopher Carl von Clausewitz said, "politics by other means." This war began as a result of diplomats stirring up international acceptance of military action, and it will only end when diplomats step up and do the heavy lifting to rally the international community and regional players towards the cause of bringing stability to Iraq. Throughout modern history, militaries have won battles, but only diplomatic negotiators have ended wars. Iraq is no different.

Is this an Army and Marine corps at war, or a nation at war? No matter how one feels about starting the war, now that our troops are in harm's way, it will take an interagency process, and national strategy, to get them out. At the top of that process is the State Department doing a heck of a lot more than it has been to this point.

At a time when our soldiers in Iraq are now beginning their third tours, at a time when deployments get extended to 12 and 15 months, it is unconscionable that those in the State Department would so fail our military by refusing to do their jobs, which is to find a way for our troops to leave, while fortifying some semblance of stability in the region. The diplomacy it will take cannot be done over the phone, or email, or instant messenger. It will take the full force of our Department of State personally being stationed in Iraq, and engaging in intense, face-to-face, shuttle diplomacy.

In short, this war will not end without chaos, unless the State Department steps up, and makes the same sacrifice in Iraq that our troops have made since 2003.

Rep. Duncan Hunter offered a suggestion that is moronic, at best - send wounded troops back to Iraq to do the job of the State Department. As if that's a big "thank you" to those who sacrificed their minds and limbs.

I have another idea - send Condi Rice to Iraq until Jan 20, 2009, when George Bush's term is done. That would be just about 15 months - the same amount our troops are spending there now. This would be leading with your feet, as we say in the Army. Though State Department officials should be serious enough about their jobs to go to Iraq anyway, if they are not, then it is time for Condi Rice to show leadership through example.

For the next fifteen months, she should be based out of Baghdad, and spend the vast majority of her time, leading forceful, face-to-face, shuttle diplomacy, and convene a regional conference to find resolution of the warring parties in Iraq. From Baghdad, she also could reenergize the Mideast peace process and begin talks with Iran about their nuclear program.

Of course, with other hotspots in the world, she could and should leave Baghdad when absolutely needed. But, it is time for her to show that the State Department will make the same effort our troops have. It is time for her to show that the United States is serious about bringing about diplomatic solutions that will settle the largest differences in the region, and allow for our troops to come home. It's time for her to move her office from Foggy Bottom to Baghdad.