Will a New Secretary Mean New Leadership?

Rumors of Hillary Clinton possibly become Secretary of State have apparently shifted the focus of transition speculation to the State Department for now. The Washington Post this morning had a couple articles on the topic. The most interesting article, which really was nothing new to those of us in the Foreign Service, was on the serious lack of resources for the Department and the Foreign Service.

It was bad enough when our travel budgets were slashed so that---even cramped in the worst seats in the plane (no "economy plus" for our fearless public servants)---we lacked the money to travel to the places and meet the people necessary to advance our nation's foreign policy agenda. Now I'd be happy if my office had the money to buy us pens.

And forget about Secretary Powell's much lauded training float. Foreign Service Officers get one week of leadership and management training every few years. I know we're supposed to be the best and the brightest, but 3 weeks of classroom exploration does not make good leaders. And that lack of training shows...

The State Department, despite its important mission, is a very small government agency, with relatively weak lobbying power, especially compared to the Department of Defense. It's important, though, that we have a Secretary committed to fighting for the resources he or she needs to carry out the administration's foreign policy. It was deeply disappointing that recently the loudest call for increased funding for the Department of State came not from the Secretary of State, but from Secretary of Defense Gates. Hopefully our next Secretary will understand that repeated exhortations for Foreign Service Officers to make sacrifices in service of their country should be combined with the expenditure of a little political capital and sweat to get the FSOs the resources that might help make their sacrifices worthwhile...