Third, State personnel need greater experience and insight outside their narrow domain of international diplomacy. The world is far more integrated thanks to globalization than it was thirty years ago and while it was once sensible to let State steer most diplomatic relationships on autopilot, foreign policy needs to be tightly integrated with the perspectives from other fields, particularly economics. It would be a good idea for State’s fast-track, rising stars to do some early career stints- call them visiting fellowships, internships, whatever – at Treasury, the Fed, the CIA or NSA, the Pentagon and so on.
Another place where State could use broadening is in the messy world of politics to get a better grip on where key Congressional players on foreign policy are coming from. Spending six months to a year helping appropriations and foreign relations committee staff would keep State personnel attuned to American politicos and, I think, help the committee staff, Congressman and Senators get a keener understanding of and sympathy for State’s needs and the limits of the possible in diplomacy ( reducing the propensity for magical thinking during a crisis). It would be a good two-way educational street.
State’s culture and habits of mind go back not to the Cold War but to the Great War when the United States began to accept a wider role in global affairs during the progressive era and the 1920’s. The time for renovation is long, long, overdue regardless of whether Iraq is going well or ill or if the president in 2008 is a Republican or a Democrat. State is far too important to national security to be marginalized or left to muddle through on its own, making policy in ad hoc fashion in response to the overriding pressure of the day. It’s time to contemplate change.
Page 2 of 2 | Previous page
collounsbury:
August 21st, 2005 at 5:49 pm
Very nice? I shall try to find time for thoughts from my perspective, but very nice.
Anonymous:
August 21st, 2005 at 5:50 pm
Argh that question mark is a typo.
mark:
August 21st, 2005 at 8:21 pm
Hey Col –
Thanks ! Sorry for the tardiness in finishing the second part – too much going on here lately…..
collounsbury:
August 22nd, 2005 at 7:05 pm
An item that occurs to me is that it is non-obvious to me why moving from a regional desk structure to functional desk structure really changes power dynamics (of course I do not know what the structures are actually like).
It is also non-obvious to me how this fits with the overseas staff career path and what I understand you agree is a necessity for coherent regional specialisations.
That is not to say I disagree, I find the thrust of this interesting and useful, but something seems to be missing – which may be my ignorance.
mark:
August 22nd, 2005 at 11:49 pm
Hi Col-
To be honest, the thought occurred to me too – that tiny ” empires” would inevitably get rebuilt around some new premise- human nature being what it is.
The desk structure should be broken up anyway- and whatever replaces it should also be renovated about 15 years later.Basically on a midcareer time cycle – more frequently would not allow personnel the stability to gain useful experience. Longer allows the most talented fast-trackers to become complacent, bored and spend their talents intriguing while the slower performers give up hope and just meander until retirement.
The 15 year shake-up gives hope to the late-bloomers and keeps the ambitious empire-builders on their toes as well. It would also provide a built in opportunity for the political appouintees and Congress to reasses policies comprehensively. Do they match the state of the world ? Does State’s structure still correspond to meeting the objectives of U.S. policy ?
As for internal promotions, my sense is the FSO’s aren’t entirely clear on or happy with the system of review they labor under. It would sound like they need more objective performance criteria but I’m not up on this level of administrative detail to speak competently.
collounsbury:
August 23rd, 2005 at 10:33 am
Right Mark. You know your commentary is strong because it’s grounded.
A shake up based on the concept that nothing works perfectly is a good idea.
Re review, I KNOW they are not, always bloody complaining after I ply them with Cuban products. I would too (of course I only know the overseas staff for my business reasons), given what I understand.
I guess the tension I see is between a regionalised staff structure overseas, and a functional staff structure domestic.
One would have to honestly admit the tensions and try to build in some kind of career feedbacking.