Condi's Revolution

The Divine Ms. M forwarded me a January 23 article by Ralph Peters for the New York Post called "Condi's Revolution". (The NY Post requires registration, so this link takes you to a reprinted version.) It's a response to Secretary Rice's recent speech at Georgetown on transformational diplomacy. I recommend first reading Rice's speech, then Peters' piece, and then my own little diatribe.

The upshot of Lt Col Peters' piece is that Secretary Rice is knocking heads at State, and the befuddled dangerphobes there are running for cover. And while it's high time for such moves, they are sure to make Rice the "most hated" Secretary of State ever by her charges at Foggy Bottom. Luckily, I think he's wrong. While individual officers may have a range of opinions on Secretary Rice's effectiveness and priorities, I think most agree, and have long agreed, that increasing our presence in rising powers (like China and India) and "non-western" cultures (read - the Arab world) is vitally important.

Peters first notes approvingly that diplomats are now required to learn two foreign languages and develop regional expertise in two areas. This is true, and applauded by everyone in the Service I've spoken with. Note also that these requirements were developed while Colin Powell was still Secretary of State, and he is regarded as perhaps the most popular Secretary of State ever by folks here. So, they're neither hate-inducing nor particularly new.

His second point, that "Old" Europe has been disrespected via the shifting of diplomats from traditionally larger European posts to rising countries like India and China, is perhaps half-true, but comes off more as another refrain of Rumsfeld's chorus, circa 2003. Officers are being shifted, but I think it's more a reflection that China and India's economies are surging. Such countries stand to become ever more important in terms of economic output, resource competition, and realpolitik discussions. Of course officers will be posted to such places - one wonders why would this cause an uproar.

Here in Delhi, I can definitely say that State folks are excited to go to India, China, Iraq, Brazil, etc. My second day at post, the Political Counselor told me that years from now we'll look back and say we were in India when everything changed. Not exactly present at the creation, but pretty close, and you can feel it in the air. Who wouldn't want to be a part of the discussion around nuclear separation plans in India, the tension between human rights and economic development in China, or the rise of populism (again) in South America?

His third point rehashes the second, implying that the increased emphasis on other countries can only mean a diminution in Europe's importance. However, I don't think this is a zero-sum game. State has for the last few years been reversing a long-term trend of hiring below attrition. Through Powell's Diplomatic Readiness Initiative (DRI), there has been a focus on hiring, on technology, and on recruiting speakers of critical needs languages. The end result is that we remain able to work with our traditional allies while increasing our ability to reach into new areas. After all, it's not in our interest to disrespect the third and fourth largest economies (Germany and UK) just to pander to the fifth (China). I think our goal is to be open to all, and to do so in as expert a fashion as possible.

Peters' fourth point takes the increased emphasis within State on serving in danger/hardship posts (again, started by Powell I believe) and twists it into an attack on the courage and desire of those in State to serve. Beyond being in poor taste and counterproductive, it's also false. Next time he calls State employees gutless and like "Chinese court eunuchs," he should remember that more Ambassadors have died in the line of duty since Vietnam than generals. I'm definitely not questioning the bravery of those in uniform, just wishing for a more unifying tone. We're all working toward the same ends over here, after all.

He then throws out a few more personal daggers, referring to Foreign Service Officers as eurotrash, calcified and arrogant, and lacking management experience. I'm not sure what experiences he has had to make him so bitter. What's patriotic about demeaning your comrades-in-arms, anyway? I'm lucky to serve in India with the Deputy Chief of Mission of the Year, the winner of the Dissent Award (Political Counselor) and the Foreign Service National of the Year (i.e. Indian coworker). Clearly, the people here are good workers and motivated, and they are not maneuvering to get into "coveted old Europe."

One good piece both Army folks and State employees should read is DOD is from Mars, State is from Venus (Microsoft Word doc). This piece handily discusses some of the traditional differences in management style between the two agencies. After reading this, it's easy to see how innocent "cultural" differences could be considered intentional slights, by either group.

Perhaps my favorite line is where he calls Georgetown University a "theory-poisoned backwater." I wonder what he thinks about President Bush's alma mater. Yale can hardly be less poisoned than Georgetown. As far as his suggestion that State recruit from the Pentagon, that too has long been the case. There are many former armed forces veterans in each entering class (and they're happy to be there). And they are hardly the only ones interested in "getting things done."

It is true that many people want to serve in Europe. Those positions are coveted. And I certainly wouldn't turn down Rome, I admit! But that's probably true in the armed forces as well. Europe is cushy, and lots of people like cushy, especially those with families. At the same time, I was impressed in my A-100 intro class at how many people were champing at the bit to go to Sudan, Afghanistan, and Iraq, as well as China and India. Many people sniffed at the idea of going to Norway or Finland. Not enough action, not enough of a chance to serve. Perhaps I just don't know the people Peters is focusing on, but at least the folks I've met in DC and India seem excited by the opportunities ahead.

I think I'll choose to put on some rose-colored glasses and re-interpret Col Peters' comments. I agree with him that the push by State to expand our presence in developing countries and to continually re-invent ourselves to address new threats is great. While Secretary Rice's plans are pretty vague in her speech, again, who can argue against expanding our presence across the world? I would also ask for his support in getting some tiny percentage of the budget DoD gets. There are still only about 6,000 generalists in the Foreign Service, with about a third of them in DC. That means 4,000 people to conduct diplomacy, help american citizens in need, and be the front line in the immigration process, all spread across the globe. He does say that "a functional State Department is essential to America's role in the world," and on that too we agree.

If Col Peters writes about State again, I'd ask him to write about how we can actually unite our two different cultures in a respectful way, about his concrete suggestions on how State can use its limited budget to do more, and about how State can do more to encourage democratic reform while respecting other cultures' values (like Islam). This column seemed to reflect on a few bad experiences he had personally, so perhaps his next column could focus on more constructive next steps?