The State Department is not pulling its weight in the Surge
The problem is institutional and not temporary.
Was the real reason Negroponte went to State to knock heads together?
Did State really ask Defense recently to fill 120 of its new 350 surge positions in Iraq?
Is the typical State tour in Iraq 6 months, mostly in the Green Zone, language limited (on a percentage basis), and very limited in the mid-level manning?
Does the State and FSO union interfere with our Executive’s decisions? Why can’t State fill its Iraq quotas?
Is State and the FSO institutionally unable to do “nation-building” type work? Is it their choice, or the government of the people’s choice?
Did State fight the D.C. bureaucratic battle to run “winning the peace in Iraq”, and not task organize to do so? Do the D.C. procurement rules and schedules also apply to Iraq?
Is State and the FSO firing those who won’t go? Many call it cleaning house.
Did State demand its traditional role in Iraq for institutional reasons (2003), and then fail to deliver on its part?
Why is there a paucity of information on this subject?
Are the State and FSO institutions unable to change? Is it time for another bureaucracy called “the Colonial Corps”, or perhaps a more PC name?
For those who wish to dig deeper, five links are provided.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/08/washington/08diplo.html?ei=5070&en=3bf9471109f2f30b&ex=1172811600&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1172684447-/NV81xuliYoS42feu7hZuw
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20060907-120748-4244r.htm
http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=1193
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ndu/dod_from_mars_state_from_venus.doc
http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/archive/index.php/t-795.html
1 comment:
I don't think State can do anything that might require thinking differently than as a Westerner.
State operates under the logic of status quo and process. If both these needs are met, they feel they are doing their job and successfully at that.
Pair that with no desire whatsoever to even consider that "intellectual elites," don't really know what they're talking about (real world wise that is); add a little "we don't like change" attitude; an administration run by a cowboy (their attitude no doubt); and pretty much doing what they can to make sure the administration's foreign policy fails.
This last point is just part of institutional bureaucracy, but add the Republican "Bush" and watch out! I really don't think they have ever intended to put any effort in seeing Iraq succeed.
Post a Comment