The bureaucratic explanation is even simpler. State’s highest level career officials, by and large, like the system as it is. They are its products and given human nature, the leaders of long-established institutions are seldom revolutionaries. Or even reformers. Experienced players know how to game the system to transfer from post to post in a career-enhancing way. Tying advancement to regional depth would keep some hyperactive hotshots out of the action or preclude some from getting ” easy”, low-risk, postings. Career trajectories would be at the mercy of world events and shifting national interest.
This is why the unipolar hyperpower of the globalized, information age, 21st century crafts and executes a foreign policy with a department that had its last complete overhaul in the age of the Model T.
Page 3 of 3 | Previous page
Javaman:
October 19th, 2005 at 2:11 am
This is why the war in Iraq is going so well!
Anonymous:
October 19th, 2005 at 12:03 pm
You also have to consider the effect of more, more, and more Defense Department appropriations, while appropriations for State dry up. Defense has divided up the world into five proconsulships, and generals run them.
Much of this more properly belongs under State’s purview, but the money puts it under Defense.
This leads to the hammer-and-nail problem, in which it becomes less necessary to learn the language of the people you’re bombing.
Defense seems to have more Arabic speakers, although that has been becoming less true as they purge those of unacceptable sexuality.
CKR
collounsbury:
October 19th, 2005 at 12:40 pm
I am glad you quoted the retired analyst. His experience matches what I have seen as an outsider.
I note my impression of US defense department Arabic speakers is that for the most part those that I have encountered are not at a good level and have a very… command oriented command of the language.
However, this is mere anectdote.
Anonymous:
October 19th, 2005 at 10:14 pm
The State Department does not choose their hires on the basis of language ability. A cousin of mine who speaks no foreign language was hired while three friends with good language ability were not. One had a law degree, fluent Chinese and fluent German, another was working on a PhD in Middle Eastern History, had a mother who was an ambassador and had fluent Arabic (Egyptian and MSA) another had an MBA and a Law Degree and nearly fluent German. I have met some American state department employees with really good Arabic, but they were on the culture desk and have likely since retired. I have met DLI graduates with clumsy MSA and no colloquial at all. I can understand that there is a particular personality type that makes for a good diplomat. I also understand that humanities types with language training and talent may not seek out government service and may not be able to represent the policy of their country if they don’t agree with it (I have seen this in USAID people). But hiring State Department officers who fit a personality profile while ignoring language ability is nutty. In the case of Western European languages, it is like hiring someone to be an entertainer, assuming they will be able to pick up classical guitar in their spare time without even checking to see whether they have musical talent in the first place. In the case of Arabic or Chinese, it is like hiring someone taking it for granted they can become an accomplished concert pianist.
mark:
October 20th, 2005 at 4:18 am
Hi CKR,
I don’t care if they are drag queens; if they are superb linguists we have critical SIGINT intercepts that basically go unread for lack of warm Arabic-fluent bodies.
Col-
From what I’ve read of the analyst’s posts he’s pretty impressive. Both an in-country and a scholarly grasp.
Well-said Anon !
Curtis Gale Weeks:
October 21st, 2005 at 2:15 am
as they purge those of unacceptable sexuality.
Heh. Before I joined the U.S. Army in 1989, I requested training in Arabic and was assured that my high scores on the required test would allow me to pursue that course.
Instead, they dumped me into Korean at DLI.
Then, before finishing the program, they kicked me out for being gay.
If I had been allowed to follow my chosen course, I would probably have stayed in the military, would have pursued my study of Arabic, and perhaps would be helping out in Iraq right now.
That was 1989-90, before Gulf I. But I had this feeling that Arabic would become very important (as anyone paying attention to the world would have realized).
So, now I blog.
mark:
October 21st, 2005 at 2:50 am
Curtis,
On the other hand the 1990’s was a terrible time to be in the military. A lot of irreplaceable warfighter types received the boot or retired early then. A good friend of mine who might very well have been at DLI with you ( different language)and subsequently taught at top tier universities left the service shaking his head. I won’t say he was irreplaceable but his linguistic talent level didn’t exactly grow on trees either.
Interad:
October 29th, 2005 at 6:57 pm
Hello, I am a korean visitor, good to see you.
I am sure that your blog page looks great to me which mean looking crowded so, I would like to let everybodies know korea information official site korea.net same as Dynamic korea – contains all about korea news and informations, please let me introducel this cool site. Dynamic korea offer korea travel, culture, food, arts and government info exactly what you want to knowkorean recipe. You better check it out some time.
Anonymous:
October 30th, 2005 at 1:45 am
Hi 🙂
You have a great blog! Keep up the great work, and I’ll be sure to visit regularly.
I have a online undergraduate degree related site, check it out if you get some time!
Look forward to reading more of your insightful post!