http://www.afsa.org/fsj/feb08/speakingOut.pdf
Here's an interesting article by a retired senior FSO. The article covers a number of issues, but what struck me was his use of the phrase "taking the King's shilling." That phrase has been heard a lot in the months since the disastrous State Department town hall meeting (at which the Director General resorted to the stupid rhetorical device of referring to popular support for slavery back in the day to defend the unpopularity of the current administration's Iraq staffing problems.) Essentially, a number of foreign service officers have used it to argue that we should all "suck it up" and do our job, whether we agree with the policy or not.
This argument has a lot of resonance with people, though, of course, we no longer have a king. (It may be time to update the foreign service written exam.) Some two-hundred years ago, the American colonists fought a "revolution" so that we would not have to be subject to the arbitrary whims of an unelected tyrant. Instead, we created a government with an elected leadership (the executive branch, including the State Department, to be led by the President). More importantly, some one-hundred years after that we had another revolution of sorts where government employees were given certain rights (and the civil service was created). Prior to that second revolution, government employees really did "take the President's shilling" and were required to do the President's bidding. (I.e. they were all political appointees, either rewarded for their support during the election with government sinecures, or put in position to carry-out the President's will. They would be replaced when a new President, with a new will, came along.) Replacing all the government employees every time there was an election was obviously not the most efficient way to govern. It also discouraged people from becoming experts and offering good advice to the elected leadership.
Today we have a professional civil service and foreign service. Foreign service officers serve for decades, building up experience and gaining real-world insight into diplomatic relations. We are experts on foreign affairs (much as military officers are experts on military tactics, operational art, and strategy). People who argue that we take the shilling, so we should shut up and do the bidding, correctly note that our job is to carry out the foreign policy of our elected leaders. They miss, however, the equally important point that our job is also to provide expertise and advice to that elected leadership, most of whom come to the job with a few foreign policy advisers who have outstanding academic and theoretical credentials, but precious little real-world experience.
Without getting into the minutae of why I think our Iraq policy is seriously flawed, I think telling foreign service officers that they are wrong to point out the flaws they see in this policy is dangerous and short-sighted.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Agreed, but I don't think the solution starts in the FS. How do you work around a system that doesn't acknowledge the expertise State has built up? And when is the appropriate time for criticism from FS officers and other government professionals paid to advise?
A) That's a very good question, and one the foreign service has wrestled with since its formation. (What President hasn't disliked those "cookie pushers" in State?) I don't have an answer. Idealistically, I had hoped that the political leadership had enough sense to at least listen to its people's advice. (And I will concede that they have more than enough right to ignore our advice. They, not us, were elected to represent the American people, and, in general, can put our international advice into the domestic context.)
B) Another good question. I think that it is appropriate for us to say "Here is why I think this policy is a very bad idea." (Use the dissent channel, for example.) But once the leadership makes their decision, you carry it out...though I don't think it's wrong to continue to remind them regularly that you believe they are making a mistake (politely of course, unless you really never want to serve anywhere on your bid list).
My problem with Iraq in particular is that I am really afraid that on this one particular issue, our leadership is determined to make a political statement (in this case: "no, seriously, things really are getting better") whatever the cost. And that's scary.
"I think telling foreign service officers that they are wrong to point out the flaws they see in this policy is dangerous and short-sighted" -- I agree, and there is a price to pay for this disagreement. It is not a surprise that one has to look real hard to even get a name for that Dissent Award nomination. The health of an organization can be determined by how well it handles conflict and dissent in its ranks; and State has had a bad case of flu that won't go away in the last several years. Sigh!
Post a Comment