You stated, "But I will add that it is a leviathan and the ability to clean house is challenging. State provides research and it's not unusual for the researcher's predilections from seeping into support documentation....What I am saying is that there is a contingent in State that works to undermine this administration's approach."
The implication is that the career employees are the problem and make up the "contingent" that undermines the administration. You want them cleared out.
Maybe if we try this a different way, we might not be that far apart. In your first post, you'd indicated that the feeling at State was being treated as Lilliputians. Was that because staffers were treated badly by political appointees, or maybe not badly, but their advice was being ignored?
My point was that the State Department's influence in Washington is not that great when it comes to controversial foreign policy issues. The bureaucracies are constantly vying with one another to have issues decided by the WH in their favor, i.e., agreeing with their recommendations.
The State Department and DOD often clash over issues and more often not, DOD wins. The clash has more to do with institutional perspectives and missions than any intent to undermine administration policies. The losers fight back by leaking information or pointing out flaws in the decision they don't agree with. It is the way Washington works inside the Beltway.
Powell and Armitage were constantly doing battle with Rumsfeld. All of them are experienced bureaucrats who know how to operate successfully in this millieu. Powell and Armitage were reflecting the State Deparetment's perspective and frustrations and probably thier own. Rumsfeld was their equal when it comes to the bureaucratic turf wars. I can recall the battle of who was going to control the CPA and who Bremer reported to. A lot has to do with egos and who has the ear of the President.
Wow, great post! I will start by saying that I should not have been so severe in my first post about the topic and I apologize to you.
Okay here goes -My underlying assumption - a smaller organization -- whether business and government-- is easier to manage well. A larger organization is harder -- it is easier for issues not to be seen-- not necessarily because someone is hiding them, but because the scope of work is too large to monitor well. It's true in business and it's true in government.
I agree completely with your comment about structural/institutional differences between DOD and State. They each manage a different aspect of security and have differing assumptions.
Now for the comment about dissenters. I used to vote left and had to change my way of thinking as the authority I questioned was that of those who had at one point questioned authority on the right. Dissent is healthy and necessary for corrective actions and quality enhancements. But that's not endorsing someone to be contrarian for its own sake. That serves to undermine that person's voice. I disagree with the application of Kant in the 21st century, but I absolutely do not want dissenters cleared out. What I would like to see is someone who is in State who has a non traditional view from a State Department perspective. I am only on the outside--yes I read a lot, but I would like to see more balance. Maybe you can tell me it's there and that would be wonderful.
If the case was that as staffers, all you could do is follow orders from political appointees, that's a real waste of talent that the organization did to you and your colleagues.
I want effective administration. It's important to be able to escalate concerns and issues. I don't say that lightly. No administration, whether in business or government, operates well by suppressing dissent. The difference is whether different view points can be listened to or responded to. There is a huge range of what you can say-- the challenge is to say it in a way that is effective. In business, the suppression of dissent eventually leads to the failure of the endeavor.
Someone who takes and passes the foreign service exam has an empirically verifiable and strong foundation to work within the organization. If someone went through heck on wheels to get in, works hard and does not get any reinforcement that he/she has been heard, is making progress, etc., that's frustrating, and that makes the job much harder to enjoy. It disincents those people from doing their best. And that's what I'd thought I'd understood from your comment about being Lilliputian.
And that's the risk to State, Treasury, Transportation, etc. Each department carries different risks with disincenting people who work there.
I think that it's also worth considering to what extent assumptions about research or an initiative, where in business, academia or government, should be written explicitly in the documentation provided. Assumptions are important intellectual tools, but the single biggest reason for a failure is that different people working together had different assumptions and did not state them clearly at the outset.
I think it's a healthy thing to include the premises of the writer in the body of work.