Hitting Bottom in Foggy Bottom

In addition to what the author nicely puts down on the dangers of militarizing foreign policy, there is one more that could imperil all else. If military officers grow accustomed to being at the head of decisions on foreign policy they might also entertain the idea that an officer should be dictating from the executive seat. Of course to many the idea that American officers would betray the Constitution in such a way is unthinkable, but I prefer to act on the theory "something is only impossible until it happens".

Provocative tease line on the link - thankfully, Mr. Armstrong's answer was "no."

Having the Pentagon in charge of foreign policy is efficient if we are to continue our path to military empire - and as Grant suggests, dictatorship. Most Americans seem satisfied with our imperial condition, even though 95% of Americans don't even think we are an empire. We are, "the essential nation," the "world's policeman," or at best a "benevolent empire."

But the American Century is over, and we are in our waning days as an empire. To continue this militarization of foreign policy will just dig us deeper into occupation of the two nations we occupy now. If we continue the expansion, into Iran, Pakistan, central Asia, northern South America, and those other lands of Thomas Barnett's "non-integrating gap," we will surely crash as an empire.

We should rather rejoin the community of nations we abandoned in the last administration. I remember Richard Perle's celebration of the "death" of the UN as anything but a "debating society." While god knows the UN needs reform, or even replacement by another international body, the US's last chance is to lead that reform or replacement, through diplomacy and not military action. That or we will definitely need to reinstate a draft, to provide the fodder for our waning days of imperial dominance.

Correlation analysis to predict who will like:

1) the State Dept as is.

2) who will think of the State Department as totally penetrated by foreign subversive elements or just manned by liberals who, by definition, have a mental disorder.

If you are happy with Obama/State Department demands of no Jews in parts of Jerusalem and surrounding areas; then you like the State Dept as is; and of course you are a liberal with a mental disorder; No blacks in my neighbourhood bothers the liberal but not no Jews in parts of Jerusalem.

If not allowing women an education and forcing women to wear a particular outfit: burqa (an outfit that most closely resembles a KKK uniform, except in colour) does bother you; and if killing women for daring to leave their house not accompanied by a male family member bothers you; then you believe the State Department should clean house or be closed

Yes that predicts your feelings on the State Department.

That's a remarkable performance in the mass production of straw men, Jay. My compliments.

I guess as leberal whatevers they go both ways.

It's really no surprise that public diplomacy efforts are crashing and burning--that's exactly what Helms knew would happen--and fully intended--when he suckered Albright into the deal that Hoovered up USIA/USIS ten years ago.

Another culprit you didn't mention is the NSC which has taken over nearly all the important foreign policy functions leaving the State folks with only the most mundane issues. Put it this way: if the White House (no matter the incumbent) wanted a strong, vital DOS, we certainly would have one. Add to that the explosion in the number of "other agency" staff now assigned to embassies overseas and what you get is a whole cohort of foreign service officers who spend all their time playing tour guide for an endless parade of Washington visitors or sorting out housing issues.

State's in a funk alright: This is how outgoing AFSA State VP summed up the situation at the end of his term: stuck between the rock of unsympathetic senior management and the hard place of uncomprehending external stakeholders:

"On the internal front, AFSA proved unable to soften the hardline attitudes and lack of sympathy for employee concerns among certain of our senior officers, once they ascend to top management positions...
On the external front, despite vigorous public outreach efforts - and despite AFSA repeatedly publicizing the story of thousands of members who have served in combat zones - we never seem to make much headway in dispelling the pre-World War II public perception of the Foreign Service as a club for spoiled Ivy League brats who spend their time swilling champagne at black-tie receptions in London and Paris. We hope Secretary Clinton will do a better job than her predecessor in defending the real Foreign Service."

That Hillary inherited from the Bush administration. It took years to get like this, it will take years to fix it. at least we have an adult in there now, instead of the children from Bush land.

Did the author actually bother to talk to anyone in the State Dept before writing this article? He references "low morale" several times in the article, but were any of the reports that mention this morale problem written recently? As in, since Jan 09? Morale in the State Dept is incredibly high, what with a recent pay raise for all junior and mid-level officers serving abroad and Hillary implementing equality for same-sex partners within the Foreign Service. The end of directed assignments to Iraq (a war many Foreign Service Officers did not personally support) doesn't hurt, either. He also mentions professional discrimination within the Service against public diplomacy officers. Where on earth does he get this unsupported statement? PD officers are held in high regard, at least within the ranks of junior officers, since everyone recognizes how incredibly important public diplomacy is for advancing US interests. The author could spend some time talking to people actually involved in the organization he criticizes rather than relying on second-hand evidence from government reports.