5 ms·

I'm conflicted about this. 1. A giant departure of the old guard (some of whom were set to retire soon) could be a great bit of creative destruction. Think of

I'm conflicted about this. 1. A giant departure of the old guard (some of whom were set to retire soon) could be a great bit of creative destruction. Think of all the internal processes and tools that new leaders could fix or replace. 2. Isn't this kind of expected during a regime change? I mean, wouldn't many of them have been Obama/Clinton loyalists? I'm asking not telling. 3. Like the article states, there is a component of brain-drain. Knowledge that likely won't be reacquired except through mistakes.

GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago
> 2. I mean, wouldn't many of them have been Obama/Clinton loyalists? Third paragraph: """All are career foreign service officers who have served under both Republican and Democratic administrations."""
- glenra 10y ago
  Wasn't Obama basically a continuation of Bush as far as State Department policy? If Trump wants to actually change things when it comes to foreign policy, the "institutional memory" of these guys could be a significant hindrance to doing so. I didn't support Trump but I'm cautiously optimistic. We can't know from the outside, but letting these guys go might easily be an example of "draining the swamp".
  - altern8tif 10y ago
    Even if we think that the "old guard" should go, how does one go about replacing all of them in such a short span of time? It's not like they can "hire" replacements from competitors (like what happens in the corporate world). There is only one State Department and the work they do is very different from any other institution.
wwweston 10y ago
> 1. A giant departure of the old guard (some of whom were set to retire soon) could be a great bit of creative destruction. Think of all the internal processes and tools that new leaders could fix or replace. It seems likely there's primarily one tool that needs to be replaced, here. (Email, obviously. What, did you think I meant something else?) Seriously. How many times in the last decade or two have you thought "You know, America's working pretty well, but it's clear that we really need is a big shake up in State Department processes and tools."
- ryanmarsh 10y ago
  Yah, email. That's kind of what I was thinking.
celticninja 10y ago
re: 2 - I assume these guys are like the UK Civil Service, they are experts in their field but politically neutral in their work. They serve the government of the day as best they can, fulfilling their policy objectives using their specialist knowledge to identify the best (or least worst) way of doing it.
- wwweston 10y ago
  Yep. And their resignation seems likely to mean "I can't fulfill the set of policy objectives I'm seeing proposed, as a matter of conscience." Think about the different policy leanings you've seen over recent decades, and think about what might be outside them.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> Isn't this kind of expected during a regime change? No, it's not expected during a change in administration. While the positions involved are, I believe, all positions that serve at the pleasure of the President, they people involved are career officers that have served in senior positions under administrations of both parties (as the article states). It would be normal for them to have offered their resignation effective at the moment of transition, but they wouldn't still be there now if they hadn't been asked, and agreed, to stay on. A mass resignation just after the new Secretary of State has been confirmed is not normal. > I mean, wouldn't many of them have been Obama/Clinton loyalists? Probably not. While Joyce Ann Barr was appointed to her current position by Obama, she was appointed to her prior position (Ambassador to Namibia) by George W. Bush, and has been with State since 1979. Michele Bond has only held political appointments under Obama, but has been a Foreign Service officer since 1977. Gentry Smith has been with State since 1987, and looks like we was Director of the Office of Physical Security programs before Obama came into office. And the main figure, Patrick Kennedy, was appointed to his current office by George W. Bush, held a different appointed office previously under Bush, and held an appointed position for essentially the whole Clinton Administration; he's been a Foreign service office since 1973. Between the four, it's like 152 person-years of foreign-service experience. These guys aren't partisan loyalists of any stripe.
- DrScump 10y ago
  Only one (Kennedy) held his respective position before Obama, and he entered after the Democrats controlled Congress.
ryanmarsh 10y ago
LOL, thoughtful response... get's downvoted to -1 hahaha. Fucking HN. That'll teach me to respond to political posts with anything but a partisan liberal response.
- mcphage 10y ago
  People don't like it when you refer to government instability as "a great bit of creative destruction". It makes it seem like you're indifferent to the notion of a stable civilization, which millions of people rely upon to be able to house, clothe, feed, and support their families.
  - ryanmarsh 10y ago
    See... there you go, projecting... "government instability". I'm sure everything will be fine, but if it's not will it be because I pondered it? To some people what's going on will be wonderful. Why is it not ok to think out loud about these thins and engage in an abstract discussion.

GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago

> 2. I mean, wouldn't many of them have been Obama/Clinton loyalists? Third paragraph: """All are career foreign service officers who have served under both Republican and Democratic administrations."""

glenra 10y ago
Wasn't Obama basically a continuation of Bush as far as State Department policy? If Trump wants to actually change things when it comes to foreign policy, the "institutional memory" of these guys could be a significant hindrance to doing so. I didn't support Trump but I'm cautiously optimistic. We can't know from the outside, but letting these guys go might easily be an example of "draining the swamp".
- altern8tif 10y ago
  Even if we think that the "old guard" should go, how does one go about replacing all of them in such a short span of time? It's not like they can "hire" replacements from competitors (like what happens in the corporate world). There is only one State Department and the work they do is very different from any other institution.

wwweston 10y ago

> 1. A giant departure of the old guard (some of whom were set to retire soon) could be a great bit of creative destruction. Think of all the internal processes and tools that new leaders could fix or replace. It seems likely there's primarily one tool that needs to be replaced, here. (Email, obviously. What, did you think I meant something else?) Seriously. How many times in the last decade or two have you thought "You know, America's working pretty well, but it's clear that we really need is a big shake up in State Department processes and tools."

ryanmarsh 10y ago
Yah, email. That's kind of what I was thinking.

celticninja 10y ago

re: 2 - I assume these guys are like the UK Civil Service, they are experts in their field but politically neutral in their work. They serve the government of the day as best they can, fulfilling their policy objectives using their specialist knowledge to identify the best (or least worst) way of doing it.

wwweston 10y ago
Yep. And their resignation seems likely to mean "I can't fulfill the set of policy objectives I'm seeing proposed, as a matter of conscience." Think about the different policy leanings you've seen over recent decades, and think about what might be outside them.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> Isn't this kind of expected during a regime change? No, it's not expected during a change in administration. While the positions involved are, I believe, all positions that serve at the pleasure of the President, they people involved are career officers that have served in senior positions under administrations of both parties (as the article states). It would be normal for them to have offered their resignation effective at the moment of transition, but they wouldn't still be there now if they hadn't been asked, and agreed, to stay on. A mass resignation just after the new Secretary of State has been confirmed is not normal. > I mean, wouldn't many of them have been Obama/Clinton loyalists? Probably not. While Joyce Ann Barr was appointed to her current position by Obama, she was appointed to her prior position (Ambassador to Namibia) by George W. Bush, and has been with State since 1979. Michele Bond has only held political appointments under Obama, but has been a Foreign Service officer since 1977. Gentry Smith has been with State since 1987, and looks like we was Director of the Office of Physical Security programs before Obama came into office. And the main figure, Patrick Kennedy, was appointed to his current office by George W. Bush, held a different appointed office previously under Bush, and held an appointed position for essentially the whole Clinton Administration; he's been a Foreign service office since 1973. Between the four, it's like 152 person-years of foreign-service experience. These guys aren't partisan loyalists of any stripe.

DrScump 10y ago
Only one (Kennedy) held his respective position before Obama, and he entered after the Democrats controlled Congress.

ryanmarsh 10y ago

LOL, thoughtful response... get's downvoted to -1 hahaha. Fucking HN. That'll teach me to respond to political posts with anything but a partisan liberal response.

mcphage 10y ago
People don't like it when you refer to government instability as "a great bit of creative destruction". It makes it seem like you're indifferent to the notion of a stable civilization, which millions of people rely upon to be able to house, clothe, feed, and support their families.
- ryanmarsh 10y ago
  See... there you go, projecting... "government instability". I'm sure everything will be fine, but if it's not will it be because I pondered it? To some people what's going on will be wonderful. Why is it not ok to think out loud about these thins and engage in an abstract discussion.