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.
Bookmarks