GovernmentExecutive.com

With the situation in Iraq "grave and deteriorating," the United States must begin the process of shifting troops out of the country, members of a bipartisan panel said Wednesday. But at the same time, the group recommended, the Bush administration must make sure that it has sufficient civilian personnel in Iraq -- if necessary, by ordering some employees to serve there.

"The nature of the mission in Iraq is unfamiliar and dangerous, and the United States has had great difficulty filling civilian assignments in Iraq with sufficient numbers of properly trained personnel at the appropriate rank," wrote members of the Iraq Study Group, co-chaired by former Secretary of State James A. Baker II and former Rep. Lee Hamilton, D-Ind., in their report. For example, panel members said, the United States still has "far too few Arab language-proficient" officials in the country.

To address the problem, the group recommended that the secretaries of State and Defense and the Director of National Intelligence put the "highest possible priority" on language and cultural training for military personnel and civilian employees about to be assigned to Iraq. And, the report said, if not enough of the latter group volunteer to go to the country, "civilian agencies must fill those positions with directed assignments."

If agencies do so, the panel recommended, the federal government should take steps to address employees' financial hardships resulting from service in Iraq, such as providing the same tax breaks military personnel stationed in the country receive.

The Iraq Study Group, launched earlier this year under the auspices of the United States Institute of Peace, also recommended that the Defense, Justice, State and Treasury departments, along with the U.S. Agency for International Development, begin to conduct cross-agency training efforts to prepare for complex operations such as those in Iraq. Those efforts, the group said, should be modeled on the joint training exercises conducted by the military services since the passage of the 1986 Goldwater-Nichols Act.

In a separate recommendation, the panel said the State Department should create a Foreign Service Reserve Corps with personnel who could provide "surge capacity" to deal with future stability operations. Other departments, such as Agriculture, Justice and Treasury, should develop similar capacities, panel members said.

COMMENTS

• A recent Army job announcement says, "Position may be designated Emergency Essential (E-E) in support of mobilization and wartime mission. If designated E-E, employee will be required to remain in the overseas position in the event of hostilities or mobilization until relieved by proper authority. E-E employees are required to undergo nuclear-biological and chemical training and to participate in readiness tests, mobilization, alerts, and field training exercises. Employee must pass a medical examination and receive required immunizations for the overseas/deployed location. Prior to appointment to the position, employee will sign a statement agreeing to the E-E condition of employment. ** All INSCOM employees may be subject to extended TDY or worldwide deployments during crisis situations to perform mission essential functions as determined by management. ** Must be willing to relocate with the ESC to locations within Europe. ** Must successfully pass a pre-employment counterintelligence scope polygraph examination and re-examination on a periodic basis.** Must be able to obtain and maintain a TOP SECRET/SCI clearance. ** May be required to work irregular or prolonged shifts." Tracy Posted February 20, 2007 11:00 PM
• When I got my Civil Service job in 2005 they made me sign a form saying I'm not subject to military call up. The position description said it was "emergency essential" and I'd be subject to deployment or call up on condition of accepting the job. Now they are saying I'm only "key" and not “emergency essential.” “Emergency essential” are entitled to benefits while "key" Civil Servants are not entitled to benefits and by labeling them "key" it says they could be deployed if need be. Pretty smart 'eh? I transport Nuclear and Conventional Weapons for the US Armed Forces and am supposed to be getting paid Environmental Differential Pay for this hazardous work. They ain't paying it. I wish they would contract my job out soon....at least then I could sue my employer or go to the Department of Labor and force them to pay me the Federal mandated entitlement. We have Civil Servants here quitting. Does anyone remember the days when US Civil Service jobs were envied for their retirements and benefits? Not anymore. Their retirement now is their social security checks. Thus why they aren't keeping folks in the jobs under the new system. Civil Serving Posted February 9, 2007 1:10 PM
• There are many Civil Service Army Materiel Command (AMC) logisticians serving in Iraq and Afghanistan as part of their job requirement. As a term of their employment, they voluntarily sign Emergency Essential (EE) agreements when hired. Ironically, they often supervise contractors who gross up to twice as much pay. On top of that, federal employees are denied tax benefits provided to contractors and military members serving in the same war zone. Of the three mentioned categories of Americans in Iraq, civil service employees are the only ones required to pay taxes for wages earned while in a war zone. Soldiers and contractors are tax exempt for the first $85,000.00 of their annual earnings if they meet the annual time requirements established by the IRS. There are procedures that allow AMC civil servants to carry weapons. If the employee requests to carry a weapon he or she initiates a request through their command. The process is a bit lengthy but does work. If approved, the employee is authorized to carry a weapon in the assigned war zone. GovExec.com reader Posted January 8, 2007 12:51 AM