As a former Army NCO, I'm often perplexed at the vast cultural differences between DOD and DOS. Both sides do a lot of things very well, but there are also many ways each agency could learn from the other, rather than trying to reinvent the wheel.
That's why Kori Schake's article in Foreign Policy, "State of Disrepair", is a must read. Ms. Schake header sums it up: "If the State Department really wants to lead U.S. foreign policy, it needs to stop complaining about the military and act more like it." This paragraph pretty much sums it up:
"The people who are successful in the State Department are people who can be thrown in the deep end of the swimming pool and not drown; but the department never teaches them to swim, and the successful ones even come to discredit the value of swimming lessons, because they succeeded without them."
Another gem that really stands out:
- Protecting Americans at home and abroad through excellence in consular service should be the primary function of America's diplomats: preventing dangerous enemies from attaining visas to travel to the United States, ensuring Americans traveling overseas have the protection of their government, encouraging educational and other involvement with talented foreigners. These are the bread and butter -- what prospectors would call the "grub stake" -- of diplomacy, the activities that can only be performed by diplomats but on the success of which all Americans rely. Yet they are also the activities least valued by the State Department: Consular service is the lowest priority "cone," or specialization, in the Foreign Service. Talented diplomats are not tracked into that branch. It is as though the Army and Marine Corps did not consider ground combat their principal function. This needs to change if the State Department is to build a strong institutional base as the lead agency for U.S. foreign policy. State needs to clearly embrace consular activity as its essential function and realign the incentives and thereby the culture of the institution. Doing so would bring the State Department significant advantages, both in the operation of the organization and in its support by the public and Congress.
Schake, a research fellow at Stamford University's Hoover Institutution, has just written a new book that further explores her concepts: "State of Disrepair: Fixing the Culture and Practices of the State Department" (Hoover Inst. Press).
Interestingly, DOS & DOD also share one major similarity: Apart from the military, I can't think of too many professional organizations where prior skills and experience are NOT a major job requirement. There are only a handful of requirements to become a Foreign Service Officer including U.S. citizenship and age (20-59). There is no educational or work experience required, nor foreign language or travel experience. Granted, you have to pass the Foreign Service written & oral exams, plus earn and maintain security and medical clearances. Some would argue that all this is a good thing: all applicants, regardless of background, are on a level playing field. But should DOS should be hiring for needed skills rather than teaching on the job? Good question.