I disagree profoundly with that statement. First, the State Department is not an autonomous actor in the bureaucracy. It is just one of a number of agencies that participate in the formulation of foreign policy. The State Department's primary role is implementing the foreign policy of the United States. Ambassadors are the personal representatives of the President.
The intelligence agencies, DOD, and other agencies with interests and representatives abroad jointly have input into the formulation of our foreign policy. The NSC has more sway than the State Department when it comes to foreign policy. And ultimately, the WH makes the decisions that are then implemented by the State Department and other agencies.
Calling the State Department a danger to this country is insulting and wrong. My experience of 28 years of working as a foreign service officer risking life and limb along with the hardships endured by my family is that the State Department is staffed by patriotic Americans who serve this country well.
From comments I’ve read elsewhere it seems that some of the permanent higher-up careerists at State feel that “administrations come and administrations go, but we remain”, and that they often refer to the President (of either party) as “the Incumbent”. In other words, there seems to be an attitude that elected officials are mere transients, to be tolerated and “handled”, while they continue doing things their way behind the scenes.
That is true of every federal agency. The political appointees come and go. Some are superb and others are not qualified or capable of running a large bureaucracy. Many jobs are political payoffs due to patronage and donations. There is no doubt that a bureaucracy has its own inertia and is difficult to change. My advice to a political appointee is to focus on a few important, fundamental changes recognizing that it will be difficult. Two to four years is not very much time to make a real difference.
I don't support Romney for the Secretary of State position because he lacks a close personal relationship with the President.
Thank you for taking time to reply to my comments. I’ve always respected and appreciated your perspectives on various issues, and especially your thoroughness in researching the facts and presenting them in ways that make understanding easier for others. I pinged you because I know of your career experience, and that your inside knowledge of the State Department exceeds mine, and most other Freepers.
I do understand that the great majority of civil servants, such as yourself, are loyal, patriotic Americans who serve their country honorably. This applies not only to the State Department, but to other agencies as well. Also, I understand and agree that the State Department does not operate completely alone, but in conjunction with other agencies.
All of these points you’ve raised I agree with. They are, however, simply truisms describing how bureaucracies function. I stand by my belief, though, that at the highest levels of authority in the Department, there are many officials who do have the attitudes I described, and to a degree far beyond mere bureaucratic politics, to the point that they really don’t consider themselves bound to execute the will of the Executive. Of course I can’t prove any of this - it’s merely a subjective personal impression gleaned from many years of observation and information I’ve come across.
I remember the notorious incident when Colin Powell took office and addressed the State personnel, outlining his and Bush’s agenda for them. There was a lady official who immediately called a meeting of her team and told them in no uncertain terms that she and her people didn’t care Powell had said, they would do what she wanted. Now, nothing much ever came of it, and I imagine she experienced some negative consequences for her brazenness, but the incident is illustrative of the problem.
I will concede that my language may have been a bit dramatic, but I still believe that these kinds of institutional attitudes and mindsets are a corrosive influence, not just in the State Department, but other agencies as well. It’s just that State is an especially critical one.
That’s why I am so opposed to Romney as SOS - it’s not simply a matter of his relationship with Trump, but because I believe he’ll actually be more interested in representing the interests of the globalist establishment than those of President Trump. He can do a lot of damage. I sincerely hope that the coming days, months and years prove me wrong about my misgivings.
Finally, kabar, I apologize for offending you. I did not mean to, but I guess due to the nature of my argument it was unavoidable. I have nothing but respect and admiration for you, and appreciation for your many years of service to our country. Thank you again for all that you’ve done, and all that you do here on Free Republic.