3 ms·

Many are pointing out that the senior leadership has been in the State Department under both Republican and Democrat administrations. But given the mess that A

Many are pointing out that the senior leadership has been in the State Department under both Republican and Democrat administrations. But given the mess that America's foreign policy has been since 2001, is this truly a disaster? Tenure does not equal competence. Some would argue this is especially true in government.

LeifCarrotson 10y ago
America's foreign policy has been implemented well, which is the responsibility of these people, who, like judges, are forbidden from partisan political activity. The philosophical and political decisions that dictate what that foreign policy says are given by the Secretary of State and eventually the presidential administration over these people.
- MrZongle2 10y ago
  "America's foreign policy has been implemented well..." I think that's debatable. The Russian "reset" of 2009 comes to mind; it seems like an abject failure from start (the intended Russian word for "reset" on the symbolic button was actually "overload", but nobody at State caught that) to finish. I won't argue that, as with any senior departure(s) in other organizations, there is going to be some institutional knowledge vanishing. And that's never good.
dragonwriter 10y ago
The senior leaders involved are in roles that, while I think they are all politically appointed, are more administrative than policy making (the most senior is the Undersecretary for Management.) Whatever criticisms there have been of foreign policy, there has been little criticism that the State Department has failed administrstively in implementing the policy set by the Administration.
Bartweiss 10y ago
But the newly-emptied roles are things like Director of the Bureau of Overseas Building Operations. Those jobs have been performed quite competently, up to the limits of what elected leadership has permitted. The obvious counterpoints like Benghazi ultimately trace back to either executive or legislative decisions; the resignees are the people who were requesting more security, while the people who refused it are still in place in Congress.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

LeifCarrotson 10y ago

America's foreign policy has been implemented well, which is the responsibility of these people, who, like judges, are forbidden from partisan political activity. The philosophical and political decisions that dictate what that foreign policy says are given by the Secretary of State and eventually the presidential administration over these people.

MrZongle2 10y ago
"America's foreign policy has been implemented well..." I think that's debatable. The Russian "reset" of 2009 comes to mind; it seems like an abject failure from start (the intended Russian word for "reset" on the symbolic button was actually "overload", but nobody at State caught that) to finish. I won't argue that, as with any senior departure(s) in other organizations, there is going to be some institutional knowledge vanishing. And that's never good.

dragonwriter 10y ago

The senior leaders involved are in roles that, while I think they are all politically appointed, are more administrative than policy making (the most senior is the Undersecretary for Management.) Whatever criticisms there have been of foreign policy, there has been little criticism that the State Department has failed administrstively in implementing the policy set by the Administration.

Bartweiss 10y ago

But the newly-emptied roles are things like Director of the Bureau of Overseas Building Operations. Those jobs have been performed quite competently, up to the limits of what elected leadership has permitted. The obvious counterpoints like Benghazi ultimately trace back to either executive or legislative decisions; the resignees are the people who were requesting more security, while the people who refused it are still in place in Congress.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]