Skip to comments.The Mess at State
Posted on 01/11/2007 5:28:32 AM PST by Santiago de la Vega
Republicans in Congress who do not want to be quoted tell me that the State Department under Condoleezza Rice is a mess.
This comes at a time when the U.S. global position is precarious.
While attention is focused on Iraq, American diplomacy is being tested worldwide -- in Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, Korea and Sudan.
The judgment by thoughtful Republicans is that Rice has failed to manage that endeavor.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
The State Department is a disaster, and has been for decades. Not since George Marshall, have the American people, and it's warriors, had a Secretary of State that knew his business.
The list of failures by State is too long and too depressing to list.
Freepmates, please tell the folks just how bad a failure we're witnessing here.
zzzzzzzzzzz So State is a mess. I'm supposed to believe it's all Condi's fault. Give me a break. Has ANYONE noticed the State department is in any more of a mess than any time before?
We should declare a mortatorium on having female academics as Sec. of State. After the disasterous tenures of Albright and Rice, it should be evident that university administrators are not capable of running anything but their own university offices...and their secretaries actually do that.
Uhhhh...(scratcing my head)..so...the state department wasn't a mess before and the US was never been in a precarious position in the world until Condi showed up?
Leftist Dribble from the Washington Post.
What I don't see is what to do about it.
My rather pink sister-in-law has been realted to the gov't since the early 70's. I remember her sneering at Jimmuh, who, despite his other many faults, did seem to want to straighten out some of this mess. But I think the department heads encounter massive resistance.
Maybe the next Republican pres/Congress combo needs to look at how one can fire recalcitrant mid-level bureaucrats.
It seems that this biased press release from disgruntled state department bureaucrats should be labeled for what it is.
The state department has special culture, traditions and pre-suppositions that have made foggy bottom a closed, incestuous little clique for 60 years.
The pre-supposition is that there is no absolute right and wrong; there are no absolutes; there are no winners; only losers.
Condi questions those pre-suppositions and encourages the bureaucrats to also question those pre-suppositions. Many of the bureaucrats are incapable of questioning relativity. They are only capable of questioning absolutes. Thus Condi has confronted them with their own incompetence, that they are incapable of doing their mission. That makes them afraid, nervous, angry. And they attack Condi ad hominen.
shipmates can sink a ship
employees can bankrupt a business
unloyal people can kill a nation, ect;..
it takes unity to suceed at anything, not this self interest crap we have today
Novak is probably leaking from disgruntled conservatives around John Bolton. Bolton was never going to get an approval once John Voinovich and other Republicans turned coat. Further, the State Department beuracracy is hostile to Republican Administrations, and they are hostile to Condi's transformational diplomacy reform. No one wants to serve in a hardship post in Uzbekistan or Bombay. Everyone wants Paris. But that's where the future is.
Condi has had trouble filling Zoellick's post, so she's had to wait for Negroponte to come back. Negs didn't get smashing reviews at DNI because he understood that there was little to do after the morning brief: DNI was a clearinghouse. DNI was just another beuracracy larded on a hapless CIA. Negroponte will serve the US well at State, bringing order to a disorderly and petulant beuracracy.
Be Seeing You,
State has ALWAYS been a mess. The leftists that dominate that department have always had an agenda that runs counter to generally accepted conservative, pro-democracy principles. I saw that when I was a naval attache in a Latin American embassy and had to listen to the anti-American, anti-military drivel from the career State department weenies. We would be a whole lot better off with whoop-a$$ policy than a kiss-a$$ posture.
The problem at State derives from one thing and one thing only, the hiring process for diplomats.
The process involves a written and an oral test. It has a high washout rate. This sounds good at first glance, but the problem is that "passing" the tests requires the applicant to display a liberal, non results oriented attitude towards advancing US interests. The test is designed by liberals and that design is very carefully orchestrated to ensure that only liberals pass the test.
It does not emphasize defeat of interests that seek to undermine US policy (whatever it happens to be). It emphasizes conversation and cooperation and "understanding the enemy's position" and all the sort of attitudes guaranteed to ensure the department's diplomatic corps is staffed with people who do not care whether the US dominates the world, or is dominated by opposition forces in the world.
So STEP 1 is to revamp the hiring process and change the emphasis from cooperation and compromise into one of maneuvering the opposition into a losing configuration so that US interests always dominate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.