4
4
0
An OpEd in the Foreign Service Journal detailing why America needs, but doesn't yet have, a professional diplomatic service. Can be read at: http://www.afsa.org/america-needs-professional-foreign-service
Posted in these groups: 
Foreign Affairs
Diplomacy
Foreign Affairs Diplomacy
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 2
3
3
0
MAJ Charles Ray This is an awesome article and you clearly have the very best understanding of what this country needs. I don't think Hillary Clinton was the right person for the job as Secretary of State - do you? I really like the outline you provided for the future and what is needed in the Professional Diplomatic Service. Do you think this will be adopted or has it been adopted? Is this something the Government should start (personally I don't think they would be able to get it right) because of politics or should it be a private/public institute (Business or College)? Anyway, it was a great read and I really have a great appreciation for your knowledge and background on the subject. Maybe you should be our next Secretary of State!
(3)
(0)
COL Mikel J. Burroughs
MAJ Charles Ray I hope you weren't offended by my remarks with reference to Hillary Clinton. She just isn't on my list of favorites. I wish you the very best of luck in your endeavors and efforts to increase awareness or change the status quo.
(2)
(0)
MAJ Charles Ray
COL Burroughs, I was not at all offended. I know that Hillary is not for everyone - just as there are those who can't stand Bill (who, by the way, I also like--rascal that he is). I'm not one to mask my opinion just to be PC, and I respect others who are candid with me. What is important is not that we all agree with each other, but that we continue to focus on those areas where we do agree and work to achieve success. Anyway, my real take away from your message was that you agree with me on the need for a professional corps of diplomats to represent US interests. :-)
(3)
(0)
1
1
0
A good article, but a little light on the details. I would be interested to see a more fleshed-out plan here.
As a side note, I had the opportunity to work at the State Department for a while during college. The majority of the people I worked with, both in the Civil and Foreign Services, were extremely educated, and most of the positions I ever dealt with at every level were full of either career diplomats or individuals who had extensive outside qualifications. The Department of State is so small that it can afford to be extremely selective in hiring only the most qualified individuals. Where I think it fails is in the ethics/organizational unity categories. There often seemed to be a tendency for individuals or offices to think of their work as their private intellectual fiefdoms, and to not see a unified mission binding it all together. Perhaps that's a natural consequence of having an organization with several hundred roughly independent installations full of experts who have few if any peers outside of their immediate surroundings, but it did create a lot of unfortunate friction. I do not pretend to have a clear solution to that problem, but maybe a code of ethics and a more clearly articulated foreign policy in general (one that transcended administrations and other short-term political interests, something more akin to the idea of Containment in the Cold War) would be a step in the right direction.
As a side note, I had the opportunity to work at the State Department for a while during college. The majority of the people I worked with, both in the Civil and Foreign Services, were extremely educated, and most of the positions I ever dealt with at every level were full of either career diplomats or individuals who had extensive outside qualifications. The Department of State is so small that it can afford to be extremely selective in hiring only the most qualified individuals. Where I think it fails is in the ethics/organizational unity categories. There often seemed to be a tendency for individuals or offices to think of their work as their private intellectual fiefdoms, and to not see a unified mission binding it all together. Perhaps that's a natural consequence of having an organization with several hundred roughly independent installations full of experts who have few if any peers outside of their immediate surroundings, but it did create a lot of unfortunate friction. I do not pretend to have a clear solution to that problem, but maybe a code of ethics and a more clearly articulated foreign policy in general (one that transcended administrations and other short-term political interests, something more akin to the idea of Containment in the Cold War) would be a step in the right direction.
(1)
(0)
MAJ Charles Ray
Good point, but a magazine article is no place for a fleshed-out plan. It's an attention getter that hopefully will encourage the people responsible for such things to develop such a plan. The article doesn't say people in the FS aren't educated, but as you said, they're not organized into a coherent profession with a unified mission binding them together. Since I retired in 2012, I have been involved in an effort just as you describe, trying to develop a code of ethics. Like the military code of conduct, though, that wasn't developed until the debacle of POWs during the Korean War, it's easier said than done.
(1)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
Understood, sir. I'm not necessarily saying there's anything wrong with this article - just that I would like to see a more detailed plan because I think the Foreign Service is a great organization that could be much improved. I will be watching with great interest to see the results of your efforts. Best of luck, sir.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google