Dateline: Fixing the State Department

The foreign affairs bureaucracy, represented as lines on an organizational chart, offers presidents
powerful tools for their foreign policy agendas. However, these organizations have their own
histories, styles, and concerns, often leading to tension and disputes. President Trump's focus on
reorganizing the State Department aimed to fulfill his campaign promises of "Make America
Great Again" and "America First," criticizing existing international agreements. His
administration's restructuring efforts faced resistance from within and outside the State
Department. Proposed mergers and budget cuts stirred controversy, while personnel changes led
to internal tension. Changes in the department's mission, under Tillerson and later Pompeo,
reflected shifts in diplomatic priorities.
Presidents and the Bureaucracy
According to Henry Kissinger, bureaucracy aims to create standard procedures for dealing with
most issues, allowing high-level policymakers to focus on unexpected challenges and innovation.
However, in reality, two problems emerge: policymakers often expect too much from
bureaucracy, and they may feel constrained by its rules. For example, President Ford believed
the Vietnam War could have been avoided if the bureaucracy had advised against it, but the
reality was more complex. President Obama similarly felt trapped by Washington's established
norms. The U.S. State Department plays a significant role in this bureaucratic dynamic.
The State Department
Then called the Department of Foreign Affairs, the State Department was created in 1789 as the
first department under the new Constitution. According to historical tradition and government
documents, the president looks first to the State Department in making foreign policy.
 Structure and Growth of the State Department
The State Department acts as a crucial link between the United States and foreign governments,
providing expertise and handling vast amounts of information. It deals with over 14,000 official
records and 90,000 data messages daily, along with millions of emails annually. The department
represents the U.S. in numerous international organizations and conferences, maintains
diplomatic relations with nearly 200 countries, and oversees a network of embassies and
consulates staffed by representatives from various government agencies. Ambassadors lead
country teams but face challenges in coordinating diverse policies and often lack diplomatic
backgrounds. Despite significant organizational growth, the State Department has seen only a
modest increase in foreign service officers over the years, despite attempts to expand through
initiatives like Diplomacy 3.0.
The State Department’s Value System
Capturing the essence of the State Department’s value system is best done by looking at how
Secretaries of State have defined their roles and how the FSO corps approach their jobs.
 The Secretary of State's Role: The job of Secretary of State is challenging, with past
officials facing criticism for various reasons. They must establish a power base to
 effectively participate in foreign policy making, either by advocating for the State
Department's perspective or aligning closely with the president. Failure to establish a
power base can lead to difficulties, as seen with Rex Tillerson's tenure under Trump. His
lack of support within the State Department and strained relationship with Trump led to
his dismissal. Mike Pompeo, who replaced Tillerson, also faced challenges due to his role
in controversial policies.
 Foreign Service Officers (FSOs): FSOs form the core of the State Department, created
in 1924 to be adaptable and perform various tasks worldwide. However, they feel
pressure due to increasing political influence and blurring lines between civil service and
FSO roles. The distinction between FSOs and civil servants has been contentious, with
attempts to merge the systems in the past. Diversity within the FSO corps has been a
longstanding issue, with efforts made to increase the representation of women and
minorities. Despite progress, challenges persist, including the underrepresentation of
certain groups in key overseas appointments.
Impact of the State Department on Foreign Policy
The State Department, once a powerful force in foreign affairs, has seen its influence decline,
shifting from leading initiatives like the Marshall Plan to mainly critiquing others' proposals. It
struggles to centralize and coordinate activities within the foreign affairs bureaucracy, often
adopting a defensive stance. Criticisms focus on the Foreign Service Officers' conservative
approach and the department's failure to align recommendations with the presidential
perspective, leading to the dismissal of its proposals. While some view this role as appropriate,
efforts are underway to reform the Foreign Service selection process and change the department's
culture towards emphasizing teamwork and practical experience over exam performance.
The Department of Defense
Throughout much of its history, the United States relied on the War Department and the
Department of the Navy for military security, with no central authority to coordinate them except
the president. This system proved inadequate during World War II, prompting policymakers to
make temporary adjustments for better coordination. In 1947, the National Security Act
formalized these changes by establishing the Department of the Air Force, legalizing the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, and creating the National Military Establishment and the Secretary of Defense
position. In 1949, further changes led to the redesignation of the National Military Establishment
as the Department of Defense.
 Structure and Growth of the Department of Defense
Several organizational reform issues have emerged since the creation of the Department of
Defense. In the early 1980s, there was a push to enhance the operational efficiency of the armed
forces following incidents like the 1979 failed hostage rescue and the 1983 Beirut terrorist
attack. Congress responded by passing legislation in 1986, including the Goldwater-Nichols Act
and the Cohen-Nunn Act, aimed at strengthening military coordination and creating a unified
command for special operations. Budgetary concerns have also been recurrent, with advocates of
increased defense spending highlighting neglect after major military commitments, leading to
debates over budget allocations. President Trump's administration has sought significant defense
budget increases, prompting questions about funding sources and spending limits. Another
challenge lies in personnel issues, with the military facing recruitment shortages and relying on
outsourcing and reserve forces. Diversity and inclusion concerns have also arisen, with debates
over the roles of women, LGBTQ+ individuals, and immigrants in the military, as well as issues
of sexual harassment and the treatment of transgender individuals.
 The Value System of the Department of Defense
Understanding the internal value system of the Department of Defense requires an examination
of how Secretaries of Defense and the professional military have defined their jobs.
1. Secretary of Defense: Secretaries of Defense have historically adopted either a generalist or
a functionalist perspective. Generalists defer to military expertise and focus on coordinating
military judgments, while functionalists consolidate policy control and seek efficiency.
Notable figures like James Forrestal and Robert McNamara exemplified these perspectives.
Donald Rumsfeld and Jim Mattis continued this trend, with Mattis particularly emphasizing
the need for a strong military while favoring alliances.
2. Professional Military: At the core of the Defense Department's value system lies the
outlook of the professional military. Civil-military relations reflect a tension between
traditional views, where soldiers avoid political involvement, and fusionist perspectives,
where military leaders engage in politics. This tension was evident in both the Obama and
Trump administrations. Additionally, each military service has its unique identity and
perspective. The Navy prioritizes tradition, the Air Force emphasizes technology, and the
Army values duty. Adapting to modern warfare remains a challenge, as seen in debates over
technological advancements and counterinsurgency strategies.

 Impact of the Defense Department on Foreign Policy

The role of the professional military in shaping foreign policy has been a topic of intense
discussion, especially during Trump's administration. Concerns were raised when Trump
appointed retired generals like Mattis, Flynn, McMaster, and Kelly to key positions, fearing they
might advocate for aggressive military actions over diplomatic solutions. However, the reality
proved more nuanced. While Trump's early foreign policy leaned towards hawkishness, it
became more aggressive and risky after the departure of the generals. Historical evidence
suggests that military professionals aren't inherently more aggressive than civilians; they differ in
their approach to using force, preferring swift and decisive action. Diplomats, conversely,
prioritize avoiding military conflict. The military's influence on policy lies in providing context,
information, and tactics, but ultimately, civilian leaders hold the final decision-making authority.
The CIA and the Intelligence Community
 Structure and Growth
The intelligence community, led by the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), consists of
sixteen agencies along with the ODNI. Before the ODNI's creation in 2004, the Director of
Central Intelligence (DCI) managed both the CIA and the intelligence community. These
agencies work together to gather vital information for foreign relations and national security,
adapting to changes in technology and global dynamics over time.
 Dynamic Relationships
The intelligence community is not a fixed entity but a constantly evolving group of agencies with
varying degrees of autonomy. For example, conflicts often arise between agencies like the CIA
and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) over intelligence analysis. The CIA, with its long
history dating back to the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), remains a central figure in the
intelligence community, despite recent changes in organizational structure.
 CIA Restructuring
The CIA underwent significant restructuring in 2015 to enhance collaboration and
communication among its personnel. This involved creating ten mission centers focused on key
issues like terrorism and global affairs. The Directorate of Intelligence produces intelligence
reports, while the National Clandestine Service handles covert operations and
counterintelligence. A new Directorate of Digital Innovation was added to address cybersecurity
concerns.
 NSA Evolution
The National Security Agency (NSA), established in 1952, operates within the Department of
Defense and has faced scrutiny over its surveillance programs. Recent leaks and cyberattacks
have exposed vulnerabilities, leading to internal changes such as the creation of the U.S. Cyber
Command (USCYBERCOM) to address cybersecurity threats more effectively.
 ODNI's Role
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), formed after 9/11, oversees the
National Intelligence Program and advises the president on intelligence matters. However,
concerns have been raised about its size and bureaucratic complexity, as well as its limited
authority over budget and program decisions compared to other agencies like the CIA and the
Department of Defense.
The Intelligence Community’s Value System
 Director of Central Intelligence
The role of the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) within the CIA has varied over time. Some
DCIs focused on managerial control, covert actions, or intelligence estimation. Recent DCIs, like
Mike Pompeo and Gina Haspel, leaned towards managerial roles, increasing White House
influence. However, this managerial approach has led to concerns about politicizing intelligence
to align with administration policies.
 Director of National Intelligence
The Director of National Intelligence (DNI) faces similar role conflicts as the DCI, needing to
establish authority and intelligence orientation. With rapid turnover, DNIs struggled to build
rapport with both the president and the intelligence community. Conflicts with the Trump
administration, like those experienced by Dan Coats, highlighted challenges in maintaining
independence and providing unbiased intelligence assessments.
 Intelligence Professionals
Views on intelligence within the community vary widely, with diverse outlooks even within
organizations like the cyber command. Approaches include providing current event updates,
collecting extensive data for future analysis, tailoring intelligence to fit policymakers'
preferences, and fostering consensus. However, there's a risk that catering to policymakers'
desires may compromise the accuracy of intelligence assessments.

Impact of the CIA and the Intelligence Community on Foreign Policy

The relationship between the intelligence community and policymakers, like President Trump,
has often been strained. Intelligence doesn't always shape policy as much as it could due to
several tensions. Policymakers sometimes believe that facts speak for themselves, neglecting the
interpretation intelligence provides. Additionally, the logic of intelligence, which clarifies issues,
conflicts with the logic of policymaking, which aims to keep options open. Policymakers
prioritize information that supports their policies, and they have access to various sources beyond
intelligence, including interest groups and the media. Thus, presidents can choose which
intelligence to consider alongside other inputs.
The Domestic Bureaucracies
New additions to the foreign affairs bureaucracy have come from traditionally domestic-focused
organizations. This mirrors a trend after World War II, when the Defense Department played a
key role in global arms programs and security arrangements.
However, integrating these newcomers into foreign affairs has been challenging. The main issue
is finding a balance between foreign and domestic concerns. In the past, containing communism
was prioritized over economic goals. Nowadays, domestic goals often take precedence,
sometimes hindering broader foreign policy objectives.
Treasury, Commerce, and Agriculture
Department of the Treasury
The Department of the Treasury holds significant sway in foreign policy, often overshadowing
the State Department in international economic matters. This influence has made it challenging
for the State Department to assert its leadership. The Treasury Department prioritizes American
interests and takes an assertive stance in world affairs, particularly in economic matters. In
contrast, the State Department focuses on long-term international economic issues and considers
the perspectives of other nations. Despite a historic standoff, the Treasury Department's
importance has risen due to factors like economic sanctions and China's role in holding U.S.
debt.
Department of Commerce
The Department of Commerce, while not as policy-driven as the Treasury, plays a vital role in
foreign affairs, particularly in trade administration. Initially involved in export control, its focus
has shifted to managing non-agricultural trade policies and overseeing U.S. import-export
programs. It competes with the State Department and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative
for influence in trade policy.
Department of Agriculture
The Department of Agriculture has a limited role in foreign affairs compared to the Treasury and
Commerce departments. Primarily involved in managing food export programs, its notable
program is Food for Peace, providing agricultural commodities for humanitarian purposes.
However, controversies, such as aiding tobacco companies, have emerged.
Homeland Security
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
Established post-9/11, DHS combines various agencies with both foreign and domestic
jurisdiction. Initially focused on counterterrorism, it faces challenges, including ineffective
policies and controversies like the travel ban. Despite setbacks, it maintains a global presence,
engaging in various activities worldwide.
Policy Makers’ Response to Bureaucracy
Policymakers have three main strategies for addressing failing bureaucracies:
1. Replacing Senior Leaders: Bringing in new leadership to drive change.
2. Reorganizing Bureaucracies: Combining or restructuring agencies instead of eliminating them.
In extreme cases, new bureaucracies may be created to handle persistent problems.
3. Ignoring the Bureaucracy: Policymakers may bypass bureaucracies by becoming their experts
or creating informal in-house expert groups to provide policy guidance.
This last strategy has its drawbacks, affecting the quality of foreign policy. For example, British
Ambassador Kim Darroch resigned in 2019 after criticizing the Trump administration. Similarly,
the Mueller Report revealed that Russian officials struggled with the Trump administration due
to unclear leadership.
Bureaucrats also have their perspectives on the issue. When asked by President Kennedy about
problems in the State Department, diplomat Charles Bohlen pointed to the policymakers
themselves. This sentiment persists, as shown by the 2017 dissent cable signed by a hundred
State Department employees against Trump’s travel ban and the 2016 letter criticizing Obama's
policy on Syria.
Over the Horizon: U.S. Space Command
This chapter starts with Trump’s efforts to restructure the State Department and ends with his
plan for a new military organization: U.S. Space Command.
In March 2018, Trump proposed a separate military space force. By June, he signed an executive
order for the Pentagon to create this sixth military branch, joining the Army, Navy, Air Force,
Marine Corps, and Coast Guard. A memorandum followed in December, authorizing the
Department of Defense to create a new Space Command.
A U.S. Space Command had existed from 1985 to 2002, coordinating space forces across
branches, but was disbanded post-9/11 to focus on homeland security. Its tasks were taken over
by the U.S. Strategic Command and the Air Force. In 1999, Congress created a commission to
assess national security in space, leading to proposals for a military space department, which
were not realized until Trump’s renewed push.
Trump’s proposal faced obstacles, the biggest being that only Congress can create a new military
service. Support and opposition in Congress varied, influenced by political and economic
interests of states like Alabama, California, and Colorado. Senior military officials, especially
from the Air Force, were concerned about the potential complications and conflicts a new branch
could cause.
Space warfare itself is evolving. James Moltz argues for modernizing Cold War-era thinking,
suggesting a focus on networked power and collaboration between military and commercial
space resources. This might require a different approach than what Trump proposed.
In February 2019, Trump issued Space Policy Directive 4, which centralized all military space
functions under a new Space Force Command, led by a civilian Undersecretary of the Air Force
and a four-star general. This was a step back from creating a full sixth military branch but gained
more congressional support. By December 2019, Congress approved limited funding for the
Space Command.