Posted on 04/28/2003 11:58:35 PM PDT by FairOpinion
Edited on 07/12/2004 4:02:50 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
After former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich's forceful critique of the State Department's ineffectiveness last week, The Washington Post reported that department officials were jumping into "foxholes"
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
Source: http://www.nssg.gov/phaseIII.pdf
The Department of State is a crippled institution that is starved for resources by Congress because of its inadequacies and is thereby weakened further. The department suffers in particular from an ineffective organizational structure in which regional and functional goals compete, and in which sound management, accountability, and leadership are lacking.
The State Department’s own effort to cover all the various aspects of national security policy—economic, transnational, regional, security—has produced an exceedingly complex organizational structure. Developing a distinct “State” point of view is now extremely difficult and this, in turn, has reduced the department’s ability to exercise any leadership.
Over the past decade, the impulse to create individual functional bureaus was useful substantively and politically; e.g., in the cases of human rights, democracy, law enforcement, refugees, political-military affairs, and nonproliferation. The problem is that overall organizational efficiency and effectiveness have been lost in the process.
More fundamentally, the State Department’s present organizational structure works at cross-purposes with its Foreign Service culture. The Foreign Service thinks in terms of countries, and therein lies its invaluable expertise. But the most senior officials have functional responsibilities. The department’s matrix organization makes it unclear who is responsible for policies with both regional and functional elements. The department rarely speaks with one voice, thus reducing its influence and credibility in its interactions with the Congress and in its representation abroad.
As a result of these many deficiencies, confidence in the department is at an all-time low. A spiral of decay has unfolded over many years in which the Congress, reacting to inefficiencies within the department, has consistently underfunded the nation’s needs in the areas of representation overseas and foreign assistance. That underfunding, in turn, has deepened the State Department’s inadequacies. This spiral must be reversed.
This Commission believes that the Secretary of State should be primarily responsible for the making and implementation of foreign policy, under the direction of the President. The State Department needs to be fundamentally restructured so that responsibility and accountability are clearly established, regional and functional activities are closely integrated, foreign assistance programs are centrally planned and implemented, and strategic planning is emphasized and linked to the allocation of resources. While we believe that our NSC and State Department recommendations make maximal sense when taken together, the reform of the State Department must be pursued whether or not the President adopts the Commission’s recommendations with respect to the NSC Advisor and staff.
The President should propose to the Congress a plan to reorganize the State Department, creating five Under Secretaries, with responsibility for overseeing the regions of Africa, Asia, Europe, Inter-America, and Near East/South Asia, and redefining the responsibilities of the Under Secretary for Global Affairs. These new Under Secretaries would operate in conjunction with the existing Under Secretary for Management.
(IF you go to the link for the report, the info starts on page 65 & specific State Dept detail starts on page 70, OF THE DOCUMENT (when you pick pages), which are not the same as the pages listed on the document TOC, because the Exec. summary is not included.)
The Department of State is a crippled institution
I think this is exactly the crux of the problem Gingrich is shooting at. When Dubya took over both the State Department and Defense were riddled with Clintonistas. Rumsfeld seemingly is making progress in recasting his group in a more progressinve, innovative mode. But of course he is aided by the overall pro-Bush attitude of the military. The political generals and planners take some work, but most others hated the lack of respect and sleeziness of the Clinton years amd welcome the change.
However, State's holdovers have no such inherent positive attitude towards the new winds. In fact much the opposite. And therein lies the dilemma. The media won't help because (a) they like the Liberal Democrat (LD) "what dictator have we raised up today" mantra, and (b) to condemn State's performance during the run up to GW II (don't you just love the way Dubya's intials keep working to his advantage - remember his "WWW" response to Gore's claim of inventing the internet during the election) would be to throw rocks at Clinton and Albright - which they won't do.
So how to get this suject out in the open? Answer, make the media think the Bush administration is having internal dissention. They figure reporting on infighting among Republicans is a way to discredit Bush. And what better guy to stick into the middle of all this than Newt Gingrich, the media's favorite whipping boy. That red flag should get the media to start printing the stories we need to inform the American public about what a disaster these holdovers are. The media is not inclined to help Bush solve his problems or to daylight Clinton's performance. So more round about methods are needed to get them to do their job.
In short, I think this is what is going on. Gingrich's inflammatory comments have the primary purpose of getting the media to cover the story of the incompetence of the Clintonistas. And therefore lead to the kind of change Dubya (and Powell) want in order to do the job right next time around. To promote the "let's be innovative and try something new and non-liberal" attitude we need.
(end of earlier post)
It will be interesting to see how effective Gingrich's comments are. I am encouraged by what the Times article says. I always felt that Gingrich's remake of congress in 1994 was one of the most important defining events of the current Republican Revolution. He is quite intelligent and a savvy politician. I for one hope he will get back into government before too long. His almost daily comments on Hannity's radio program were jewels, insightful and relevant.
I think he would make a great VP candidate. What better guy to turn the reins over to later. Before you scoff with concerns that the media will crucify him, remember that during the '94 election they tried laughing at him, but that didn't work. I think his ability to motivate Repbulicans and fence-sitters to higher levels of voter turnout trumps the LD media's feeding frenzy whenever he's around. They'll always be negative anyway. This time around they will not have WJC's lying version of WH/Congressional negotiations to undermine him. And with all that, he still got most of the "Contract With America" enacted.
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.