President Bush and his administration looked like they were going to show some spine in dealing with the renegade State Department, but that was short-lived. They have decided to extend the deadline for State Department diplomats to apply for Iraq duty, to try to avoid confrontation. Here's the news on the backpedaling from the administration:

WASHINGTON - The State Department has extended a window for diplomats to volunteer for Iraq duty in the hope the Bush administration can avoid ordering potentially unwilling candidates to serve in the combat zone, officials said Tuesday.

The department has put off until at least the end of the week the process of selecting foreign service officers for so-called "directed assignments" to Iraq as it looks for more volunteers to fill 48 spots that will come open at the Baghdad embassy and outlying provinces this summer, the officials said.

You know what happens to soldiers who desert their assignments? They're charged as criminals, serve time, and receive dishonorable discharges. You know what should happen to people who claim to serve America's diplomatic interests but refuse to do their duty? The very same. If you choose to serve in the State Department, you have a duty to America's diplomatic goals, and right now, one of those goals is a free and stable Iraq. Don't like the risk? Don't take the damn job.

There has been a lot of talk over the past couple months and years about America's image in the world. Former allies have problems with the wars we're fighting and the way we're handling ourselves in the world. We have to delicately balance global image and national security, because we're not going to ignore an enemy just to "look good." A teen writer, josh4viceprez, talks about world image and "soft power" at The ACT Blog:

My former Governor Tommy Thompson has supported a policy of “medical diplomacy" on the campaign trail. I completely support the idea. What it would entail is to look to our nations top medical graduate schools to give us their top students. They would go to third world countries all around the world to build hospitals, provide equipment and provide care. The image of young Americans going around the world to provide health care would be powerful one.

I think we'd have to examine funding, but I like the idea. I can also however see people complaining because there are Americans at home struggling to get health care, and we'd have young doctors traveling abroad. I want to pose a couple questions here...

Would Medical Diplomacy Be a Righteous Use of U.S. Resources?

What Else Could We Do To Improve the U.S.'s Global Image? Does it Matter?