What do our diplomats think of this war?

This past Wednesday October, 31, the State Department announced it would be filling 48 vacant positions at the United States Embassy in Iraq out of a potential list of 250 suitable candidates. The chosen diplomats will be given the option of accepting or rejecting the one year assignment once selected, but could risk their jobs by refusing the position. The forced assignment comes due to a lack of volunteers willing to enter Baghdad's Green Zone, a constant place of violence and destruction. The announcement was met with great objection this past Wednesday, with American diplomats revolting against the decision. What does this say when the President's own team of spokespersons speak out against putting their lives on the line for this war?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/02/wgulf302.xml

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/iraq/2003986769_iraq01.html?syndication=rss

I don't find fault with the opposition being put up by these American diplomats. The fact that one of them referred to the assignment as "... a potential death sentence" really should quell the spirits of anyone still left with any pro-war sentiment. These are the individuals who are representing this country to the leaders of the rest of the world, and if they don't believe in the war, who can be expected to believe? If they are not willing to die for this country, why should our soldiers? The reality of war changes when one's own life is put at risk. It really calls into question the necessity for such destruction. If President Bush's own life were at risk on the battlefield, perhaps he would hold more reservation when initiating the shedding of blood. Now if only congress were threatened to be sent to the front lines...