Everyone knows that, but not all behave that way.

I left State after 25 mostly very good years. I didn’t always believe in a policy that was being promoted (from Carter to Bush 43, that’s a lot of policy differences), but I never undercut it. I, after all, wasn’t the one elected President.

But there certainly are those who try to influence policy through other-than-appropriate channels. In one job I had, I had to throw fits to get my staff to cover the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s Chairman in the materials we were sending abroad. Sure, Jesse Helms was a moron in numerous ways, but he was still the Chariman. You simply can’t blow him off because you don’t like him or his policies. What he said mattered.

I think a lot of commenters here, though, put too much emphasis on malign intent among State officers. First, they are not all recruited from “‘preferred’ colleges”. I’ve worked with great officers in serious jobs, who have ranged from “no degree” to state colleges to Ivy Leagues. I’ve also worked with total jerks with the same academic credentials.

More to the point, I think, is that those who choose to go into State (nobody’s drafted, after all) go in because they want to make a difference in the world. That usually includes a lot of “can’t we all get along together” types, by definition.

State bureaucracy is pretty much the same as it is in the entire Federal government, with a few wrinkles added. FSOs aren’t supposed to be rated by GS employees, and it’s difficult to remove either from jobs. Part of the problem is that for FSOs, Washington assignments are usually of only two years’ duration. The wheels of bureaucracy grind so slowly that it takes longer than that to process negative paperwork. And who needs–or can handle–a grievance filed a year after you’ve left the job and are now up to your neck in some other country? Are you really going to carry all the paperwork from your last job to your next? Some do; most don’t.

On the other hand, people can be removed for good cause. I’ve been able to get people out of jobs–and the Department–in less than two weeks when push came to shove.

But FSOs have an up-or-out regime, like the military. If you haven’t passed a certain point by a certain time in your career, you’re either frozen or shown the door. Also, there’s a mandatory (by law) “low-rating” classification. The bottom 2%/year of all rated officers are identified as non-performers. If they get that classification twice in a row, they’re out the door. No grievances or law suits permitted.

And please don’t blame State for the decisions of judges and juries. The Department is dealing with just as much of a crap shoot there as anyone else.

This said, there’s incredible room for improvement in the most hierarchical agency in the USG. Flattening the structure would be a terrific place to start.

In fact, when libertarians like me, or people who just couldn’t care less about politics and would rather stay home and watch the footy, propose making voting voluntary, we get roundly condemned, because turnout would drop, and that would supposedly make the elections less legitimate.

As for the State Dept, what they need to do is have every employee sign a statement that they understand that the foreign policy of the USA is set by the president, and that it’s their job to promote that policy whether they agree with it or not. Any employee who refuses to sign, or who is caught undermining USA policy, can be fired for malfeasance. I think this could all be done by Executive Order, but if necessary Congress can pass a law authorising it, and I doubt any court would be willing or able to stop it.

One defines their job duties as staying at home and collecting their paychecks, but under no circumstances ever showing up at work again on pain of firing for insubordination and forfeiture of pension benefits.

Just asking.

Christian Amanpour and Anderson Cooper also displayed substantial enthusiasm. Aaron Brown admonished viewers at the very end of Newsnight to put partisanship aside and embrace the Iraqi elections as good news. (Of course, the fact that he did so confirms that he understood that many people would be inclined to do no such thing).

From what I saw CNN did a decent job yesterday and overall I was pleasantly surprised.

I was in the press center of the convention center in Baghdad Sunday morning, with other USG types whose agency affiliation shall remain undisclosed, and we all instantly jumped on this one as she was giving her live report from the “second” polling site. One other delicious tidbit. Arraf’s report was interrupted and shortened by the spontaneous singing and dancing of male voters right next to her. This, in the decidedly problematic community of Baqouba. That alone was very encouraging.

As for State, I’ll wait for a lot more data before making any broad assessment, but there seems to be an emerging tension much like that visible in media circles. Their deep-seated, reflexive opposition to US policy and especially any use of power that upsets blood-stained despots or Euro kibbitzers is being undermined by the obvious moral appeal of Iraq’s fledgling democratic experiment. I just think it’s hard for them to hear old ladies who’ve survived war and genocide say they are voting to “put a bullet in the heart of the terrorists” and retain their flinty, superior, faux sophistication and disdain for American activism.

Time will tell.

“You may think that you have felt dumb before, but let me tell you something: until you have stood in front of a man who knows real pain and told him that you are against your country’s alleviation of his country’s state-sponsored murderous suffering, you have not felt truly, deeply, like a total f#(