The Foreign Service Journal, March 2021

THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL | MARCH 2021 23 Both cases reflect the simple truth, as former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski writes in Power and Principle (Farrar Straus & Giroux, 1983), that “ultimately every decision-making system is a creature of the President and each President has his own distinctive style.” But both of these cases are also surrounded by other periods in which State’s influence was central: Following World War II, State was “present at the creation” of the postwar world; and it would be difficult to dismiss the influence of State on policy at all levels, for example, during the George Shultz and Madeleine Albright tenures, when empowered Secretaries of State in turn empowered their subordinates in the interagency. So if the reality is more of ups and downs than a steady or precipitous decline, how does State better limit the downturns and ride the waves? Former Deputy Secretary of State William Burns, the Biden administration’s pick for CIA director, writes in the March 2020 Atlantic that while administrations of both par- ties have intensified the drift in American diplomacy, the State Department—“sluggish, passive-aggressive, and risk-averse— has often gotten in its own way.” I would suggest six things we could do to get out of our own way and secure a seat at the adult table of policy development. 1. Exert the power of the pen. While always fighting hard against giving up too much influence on policy to those lower down the food chain, Henry Kissinger nonetheless suggests in an essay in The American Encounter (Basic Books, 1997) that there is a “disproportionate influence to subordinate officials who prepare the initial memorandum.” If there is one thing the State Department does well, it is writing. Brzezinski takes it a step further, suggesting that coordination is power, telling of how “through coordination of the SALT decision process, I would have a major input on our policy toward the Soviet Union.” State should never shirk taking the pen or leading the coordination when the opportunity arises in the interagency process (or even when it does not). And this is not just the case in Washington interagency meetings; it has an overseas corollary. According to one former National Security Council director, the power of State’s influence eroded considerably after the Wikileaks incident (“Cablegate”) of 2010; in response, much of what had once been front chan- nel reporting imbibed by the entire interagency community has now become emails seen by a very few. If State is not contribut- ing from the field, why pay it much attention in Washington? He urges a return to the kind of analytical and judgment-laden front channel reporting that has so often defined the State Depart- ment, arguing that it brings a gravitas to policy discussions that will otherwise be lost. 2. Leadership is charisma. State Department culture is understandably influenced by the craft of diplomacy, which is often the art of saying very little in the most understated way possible. It reflects even in our fashion, a sea of unmemorable solids sprinkled only by Secretary Albright’s pins. But we weren’t always that way. As I advanced in my career, I started to notice something troubling. I saw officers coming into the Foreign Service with rich personalities and opinions, fresh styles, expressive and interesting. Over the years the culture of the department seemed to crush those personalities—knowing the need for conformity, these individuals just kept quiet or developed other “safer” interests. Later, when they’d reached the mid- ranks, the department tried to train them to be leaders, but by then much of what would have helped them to be effective leaders was gone. The philosopher and historian Hugh Nibley said at a com- mencement address in August 1983 at Brigham Young Univer- sity that “leaders are movers and shakers, original, inventive, unpredictable, imaginative, full of surprises that discomfit the enemy in war and the main office in peace.” He cites Rear Admiral Grace Hopper’s version of the J.A. Shedd adage: “A ship in port is safe, but that is not what ships were built for.” Nibley concludes: “True leaders are inspiring because they are inspired, caught up in a higher purpose, devoid of personal ambition, idealistic and incorruptible.” Leadership in the interagency starts with sending leaders there to do State’s business. There is a risk in allowing for the strong wills that make the sixth floor nervous, but there may be an even greater risk in crushing those strong wills in the first place.