What is diplomacy post 9/11?

I often find myself wishing I were still in academia, while simultaneously rejoicing in the fact that I left it long ago! But, there are times when a topic comes to mind in which I find the available answers to be less than even a cursory understanding of the topic. Perhaps this comes largely because I read mostly national and international media sources as opposed to professional journals. But, then that leads me to my major issue (and when it comes to academia, I have so, so many) with academics. They spend their time writing and researching, discussing and debating and have no true ability to reach the masses with their writings. Thus making them, more often than not, disposable. I could also mention, and will, the issue I have with media sources requiring degrees in journalism--because that will really give someone the background knowledge to write on domestic politics or environmental issues with any real degree of understanding?

OK, so what is my point? Recently a well-televised town hall meeting was held at the US Department of State to discuss the new policy of directed assignments of Foreign Service officers to Iraq. I mention "well-televised" to emphasize the fact that the officers were given no other forum in which to discuss concerns they have on a policy that hasn't existed since the Vietnam war. The event has topped headlines in the political section of papers, to the extent that even uninvolved-in-matters-of-diplomacy-and-international-relations (unless you include immigration) Utah rep Chris Cannon has called for an inquiry into what he referred to as a "mutiny," stating:

"I believe it is incumbent upon this committee to investigate whether the Foreign Service, as it is currently constituted, is suited to fulfill its mission or whether it is in need of serious reform, including the personnel flexibility to remove officers unwilling to fulfill their duties."

What IS the mission of the Foreign Service post Cold War, post 9/11? What is diplomacy in this new environment?

Does diplomacy, regardless of historical precedent, belong in a war zone? If so, what kind of training and security resources are essential and does it exist? For example, much has been said of Foreign Service personnel who are not willing to serve, but no one is mentioning that when a diplomat serves in a war zone, unlike members of the Armed Forces, his/her life insurance policy becomes null and void, a great concern to individuals with families (and something Congress actually has the power to change). What kind of work, given the level of security in a war zone, can really be done? Does the United States truly require a 1,000 man embassy in Iraq? It will be the largest in history and has cost the US taxpayers 6 billion dollars to build.

Finally, we have heard much over the last two years of Secretary Rice's plan for transformational diplomacy in which resources are being moved from more traditional posts, like Europe for example, to places such as India where the population greatly exceeds that of European nations. Does an embassy the size of the one in Iraq fit with this policy? And if so, what is the goal on an immediate, medium, and long term basis?