In Defense of the "Cookie-Pushers"

There is another thought provoking article in the April issue of the Foreign Service Journal, but this time they touch on a topic I've been thinking about for awhile: the nature of diplomacy. The State VP's article argues that while Secretary Rice's "Transformational Diplomacy" is important, we shouldn't neglect "Traditional Diplomacy." I couldn't agree more. Actually, I could. I would argue (at the risk of being publicly flogged) that the State Department is spending way too much time and resources trying to transform the world, and far too little time trying to establish good, cooperative relations with other countries.


Let me preface my discussion by pointing out that I have not yet served at a post with less than 25% differential. I think working in less-developed areas is challenging and rewarding. I think it's something that every foreign service officer should experience. It is work that does change the world, and the fact that U.S. Embassies are in so many places (where most others are not) is something to be proud of. It is also, incidentally, something that the U.S. foreign service has been doing since long before Secretary Rice stood up and declared it her policy.


That said, I believe implicit in the Secretary's statements is the notion that diplomatic service in other, more-developed countries is not valuable. This is a seriously flawed assumption, and one, I think, that emanates from the philosophical view that "soft power" (diplomacy) is not as useful as "real power" (military and economic influence). Or, in other words, we are the world's sole remaining superpower, why should we have to work with other countries to accomplish our goals?

The war against terror, both in Iraq and in Afghanistan, has revealed the flaws in that philosophy. We cannot accomplish our military mission in Afghanistan without the help of our NATO allies, and the weak "Coalition of the Willing" in Iraq has fallen apart, leaving the U.S. almost alone in fighting that war. This collapse is due in part to the fact that while the U.S. foreign service has focused all its attention on learning a new skill set: "re-building" a country devestated by war, we have neglected those relationships vital to achieving our goals overseas. No matter how much we want the people in the world's neglected hinterland to love and understand us, most of the decisions vital to our security and prosperity (counter-terrorism, energy security, arms proliferation, etc.) are being made by existing and emerging powers like Russia, the EU, China, and India. Diplomatic relations with these entities will define the shape of the world for decades to come. Iraq may be this administration's number one foreign policy priority, but that does not mean it should be this nation's. That would be short-sighted.