Good post and I agree with what you are saying--I don't think we are that far apart. When I talked of political appointees and agendas, that is where I see the inconsistency, most often expressed in inappropriate or unachievable goals through equally inappropriate means. For example: democracy in Africa. A political appointee DAS appears in my AO (Zaire) and demands what I am doing to professionalize the Farce Armees Zairoise by downsizing and generally influencing them to "do the right thing." I started laughing which endeared me to the Charge to no end.My point is that State does, in fact, pursue a consistency in foreign policy, grounded in an analysis of US interests and factoring in primarily external, not internal political, variables. But in our political system, no USG institution could or should try to hew to its own definition of USG interests and objectives to the complete exclusion of the internal political system.
Another example, the political appointee Assistant Secretary for Human Rights comes to Goma with an entourage to begin examining the issues of bringing the killers to justice in an international tribune. He and his entourage want to see the camps. Stan and I take them. The Assistant Secretary then wants to get out and discuss human rights and the need for trials with the killers. I refuse and only when the same killers disembowel a suspected spy in front of my vehicle does the Assistant Secretary and his entourage decide to accept my counsel.
These are just a couple. And I am being unfair in that I have similar stories from senior level political appointees within DoD.
These are the inconsistencies I spoke of that are as Steve and you say are inherent in our system. I agree that the career FS provides the consistency. And I also fully recognize that consistency is inconsistent with short term politcal goals. You mention the Arab-Israeli dispute. Been around that one for years and all I can say is I understand how that roller coaster rides.
best
Tom
Bookmarks