In theory you're right. In practice, the State Department has followed their own agenda for years. This is not new, conservatives have complained about it since Eisenhower was president. The problem is getting rid of career types in State versus administration department heads who change at least every 8 years, and usually within 4. Add to this the problem of past administrations packing partisan employees into these departments, and overcoming the problems this creates is a huge endeavor.
I give a lot of credit to Rice and Rumsfeld. They have done more to clean house than most department heads.
I'm rereading "None Dare Call It Treason" presently. The value of 40yrs of hindsight makes this book even more important today IMO.
You may know more about practice than I do. I only spent 28 years working for the organization. Based on my experience, the WH and NSC as well as some intelligence agencies and DOD have more to do with making US foreign policy than the State Department. What do you mean specifically about following "their own agenda?"
The problem is getting rid of career types in State versus administration department heads who change at least every 8 years, and usually within 4.
The vast majority of people in the State Deparment are "career types." The same holds true for DOD and the CIA. The country needs a career bureaucracy for continuity and the development of expertise. US national interests don't change with administrations, just emphasis.
Add to this the problem of past administrations packing partisan employees into these departments, and overcoming the problems this creates is a huge endeavor.
This is another myth. Check out the Plum Book to see how few political jobs there really are. And with every change in adminisitrations, people holding these jobs must put in their resignations. The real issue is "burrowing in", i.e., political appointees who try to compete for career jobs through the normal appointment procedures. The numbers are very small, but there have been cases where individuals have converted from non-career to career positions.
"The GAO review found that 23 agencies converted 144 individuals from non-career to career positions during the time period studied. They ranged in salary from about $31,000 to $146,000 annually. (In the similar review of the Clinton administration, which ran from October 1998 through April 2001, the GAO found 100 appointees who had been converted to career status.)
For the Bush administration years, the GAO examined 130 conversions at the General Schedule 12 or higher pay levels, finding that 37 did not follow normal hiring practices. The GAO determined that 18 were improper, and could not find enough information about the rest to render any judgment.
I give a lot of credit to Rice and Rumsfeld. They have done more to clean house than most department heads.
They can't clear out anyone who is occupying a career position except by abolishing the job [RIF], which still allows the individual occupying the job to "retreat" to other positions. What specifically has Condi done to "clean house?"