Toward Sustainable Security in Iraq and the Endgame

[Tom Odom]

Part of the key may lie in the Department of State, but I'm not sure if their infrastructure is sound enough to carry consistent policy evaluation these days. If current events are any clue, I would say that it is not...

I am more optimistic. The FS is changing and for the better. It has a ways to go but the demands placed on it in the past 5 years alone have done much to move its central ethos in a different direction. Used to be the FS saw the initial entry process as a validation of its elite status; we got in and therefore we are the best. The military offers the ethic you can come in and become the best. The new FS selection process is a step toward the latter and that is a good thing.

Now where I am not optimistic is in the political policy arm--those political appointees who are in because of their allegiance to a political party and its agenda. There is where inconsistent policy evaluation starts and as Wayne offered the search for a holy grail. Funny that I worked with these political wonks from the Democratic party camp and their goal in Africa was "democracy". The means they put forth to achieve that end were quite different from the means put forth by the current administration for the same goals.

Then again I have to say that my latter concerns apply equally to the political apparatus that gets installed in the Pentagon with every change in the White House so I am not at all sure we can just point to State for a lack of consistent policy.

Tom

[Steve Blair]

Then again I have to say that my latter concerns apply equally to the political apparatus that gets installed in the Pentagon with every change in the White House so I am not at all sure we can just point to State for a lack of consistent policy.

Tom

Tom,

I don't hang the whole thing on State by any stretch of the imagination. My point was more than we might be better served to look to State for something approaching a consistent view of foreign policy/direction than we might other areas in government. It's good that they seem to be changing for the better, and like you I have little faith in the political appointees that riddle the system. But a solid State might be able to influence those appointees and keep the system on something approaching a stable track.

One of the flaws, IMO, in our system is the constant shuffling that takes place in high levels any time there is anything approaching an election. Not sure if there's an easy solution for that (and if there is, it's certainly another thread).

[Outsidethewire]

It's a little ironic to read the last few posts, because more often than not State (my home for the last 20 years) is criticized for being TOO consistent in how it steers policy, and not responsive enough to the political leadership of the day, (think Newt Gingrich accusing State of undermining President Bush's Iraq policy in 2003). Arguably, continuity over the years is one of the key characteristics of U.S. foreign policy -- look at relatively consistent US positions on the Israeli-Palestinian issue, security in Europe, security in Asia, etc. State plays a key role in that, as the manager of all the countries, regions, and issues that DON'T inspire much contention and don't require high-level political involvement.

Every administration comes in and focuses on a few key issues, and on those there may very well be significant swings in policy. State, as an implementor of the President's policies no less so than DOD, is charged with carrying those out. Perhaps the changes are, indeed, the result of "political appointees who are in because of their allegiance to a political party and its agenda," (Tom Odom) but isn't that what our system is designed to do? If the career diplomats in State were to pursue a "consistency" in foreign policy that conflicted with the duly elected President's decisions to take things in another direction, I think most would see that as a real problem.

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.

[Tom Odom]

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.

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.

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

[Ken White]

with my observations over many years. My concern is that State doesn't get listened to (or adequately funded and manned) by Congress. That and the fact that the DoD geographic commands effectively end up setting foreign policy -- which is not their job and in fairness, most of them and most of DoD know that, it just happens by default no matter how much the GCC try to avoid it.

We could probably stop with the political plum Ambassadors, too...