Money quote(s):
"When I meet people who are interested in joining the State Department's Foreign Service, I always ask them why they're motivated to serve. Everyone has their own reasons, but one common motivation shared by many is a desire to help shape U.S. Foreign Policy. Many of these same people are dissatisfied with the current state of affairs and how we conduct ourselves on the global stage, and believe that by joining the Foreign Service, they can play some role in creating change.
There's no doubt that we all need to be informed and engaged on global issues so that we can vote for politicians who will support the type of approach to global affairs we favor. But I wouldn't recommend joining the Foreign Service if your primary goal is to influence how U.S. Foreign Policy is conducted. Those who think they're going to be creating policy are often disappointed and disillusioned when they realize that Foreign Service Officers (FSO's) are tasked with implementing policy, not creating it."
Yes, yes, YES!
Dave gets it, but then he was one of us not so long ago.
FSOs do not create U.S. foreign policy, we carry it out.
Military folks should understand this well enough; except at the very highest levels (and this is also true of FSOs), military personnel do not create defense policy or make strategy, they make it happen.
"FSO's are often called Foreign Policy foot soldiers. They receive marching orders and they carry them out. This doesn't mean that FSO's play no role in shaping policy at all. The insights provided by FSO's on the ground overseas via cables, memos, and in-person briefings can help influence decision-making in Washington."
There's nothing wrong or dishonorable with being a "foot soldier." And Dave correctly remarks on the considerable influence FSO reporting from overseas can have on decision-making back in D.C. CAA can attest to the remarkable respect that diplomatic reporting cables garner among intelligence analysts around the beltway; readers of wikileaks (CAA is not, can not, be one) may be able to back me up on that.
"(I)f you enter the Foreign Service thinking you're going to be calling the shots on how to shape the bilateral relationship with the country you're posted in, you're going to be disappointed. Even if you rise to the level of Ambassador, you're still going to need to seek approval from Washington before proceeding on all matters of substance.
The practicality of this reality is that passionate, idealistic, crusaders with very strong opinions don't always make the best diplomats. You're free to have your own opinions and the State Department has a formal "dissent" channel whereby FSO's can voice their objections to U.S. government policies, but as a representative of the United States government, you really have to keep your politics to yourself, particularly while serving abroad. Not all FSO's follow this rule but the most effective senior level diplomats do."
Please note that CAA is not a senior level diplomat.
Also note that CAA keeps his politics to himself at work, particularly when serving overseas.
"I'd estimate that a majority of FSO's lean Democratic, and given the fact that the George W. Bush administration was at times openly hostile towards the State Department, it should come as no surprise that there were plenty of dissenters in the Foreign Service during the W years. The war in Iraq and the subsequent mass diversion of human and material resources to our mega mission in Baghdad created lots of malcontents, but only a few, like Brady Kiesling, resigned on principle.
Kiesling and others followed their conscience, but I think that when you join the Foreign Service, you have to expect that you'll probably serve under Presidents you dislike who will implement policies you disagree with. If you're not the good soldier type who can live with that, the Foreign Service probably isn't a great career choice for you."
Like the military, you trust in the system (that you're an integral part of) to proceed in a lawful, Constitutional manner that reflects the will of the American people as embodied by their elected representatives.
It's a terrible system, no doubt, the worst possible one, of course, except for all the worse ones.
"The bottom line is that the Foreign Service is a highly structured, chain-of-command focused bureaucracy, not that unlike the military. If you're not capable of holding your nose and delivering a message you find personally repulsive, don't sign up."
5/2
No comments:
Post a Comment