The Foreign Service Journal, May 2020

24 MAY 2020 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL more detailed (and officially endorsed) doctrine for FSOs on our core values, code of professional ethics and tradecraft. This is an essential element highlighted by Huntington of most, if not all, profes- sions—from the military officer corps to medical doctors. Some may contend that the Depart- ment of State’s Foreign Affairs Manual fills that role as the “single, comprehen- sive and authoritative source for the department’s organization structures, policies and procedures.” But while the FAM provides administrative and regulatory guidance, it does not cover what is needed: the principles, concepts and informed professional guidance that make up true doctrine. By comparison, officially endorsed doctrine not only guides military officers in the conduct of their missions, it ensures that the professional military education they receive is derived from the experiences and wisdom of the offi- cer corps itself. In the words of a military scholar at West Point: “Army doctrine is defined as the fundamental principles by which the military forces or elements thereof guide their actions in support of national objectives. … It is a body of thought … and a statement of how the Army intends to fight.” The Foreign Service officer corps has no codified , official doctrine. Instead, FSOs rely on oral traditions to pass val- ues, lessons learned and tradecraft from senior officers to those they supervise and mentor. This practice, which benefits those who are lucky enough to serve good leaders (and disadvantages those who aren’t), is not sufficient for a mod- ern, professional Foreign Service. This lack of professional doctrine, which should be developed by the profes- sional diplomatic corps itself, leaves our officers poorly prepared for their missions and prevents us from further developing a professional education system. Professionals Are Experts, Not Generalists To help advance training and research, and to develop professional doctrine, FSOs should work with State to define ourselves as experts instead of generalists . A “generalist” in the Foreign Service prioritizes knowledge of multiple coun- tries and regions of the world along with a proficient understanding of bilateral, regional, multilateral and global issues, rather than developing true expertise on a particular region, country or functional issue. A look back at the contributions of some of America’s greatest diplomats, however, emphasizes the value of expertise. George Kennan, for example, wrote the “Sources of Soviet Conduct” (better known as the “X” article) in 1947. This transformative analysis of Russian motivations, which built the intellectual foundations of the containment strategy that saw the United States through the Cold War, was based on Kennan’s deep understanding of Russia, its language, culture and people—expertise derived through repeated tours in the region and career-long study. In its generalist approach, the U.S. For- eign Service is an outlier in the world of diplomacy, particularly when compared to our great power competitors. Chinese and Russian diplomats can expect to spend their entire careers working on a single country, or a small group of related countries united by language or shared regional history, with the specific objec- tive of gaining unique knowledge and expertise. Focusing on developing the level of expertise achieved by Kennan and many other predecessors would increase our rel- evance and influence in the bureaucratic politics of the interagency community. Without professional, regional and linguis- tic mastery and a network of long-term foreign contacts, a “generalist” misses out on what should be an FSO’s singular com- parative advantage in the policy debate. Join the Public Foreign Policy Discourse To play a role in shaping policy, FSOs need to join the academic and public discourse on U.S. foreign policy priorities, particularly in this new era of great-power competition with China and Russia. Published research and writing by military officers exploded during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and helped reorient Washington toward more effective coun- terinsurgency strategies. Diplomats played, and still play, important roles in those counterinsurgen- cies on the ground, yet our voices went comparatively unheard in the public analysis that examined what worked and what didn’t in the midst of those cam- paigns. Contributions to our Foreign Ser- vice Journal are vital to this dialogue, but many other periodicals and blogs would welcome greater input from FSOs. Besides participating in public policy discussions, FSOs need to better communicate their under-recognized commitment and patriotism, and the responsibility they take for their work that helps define diplomats as professionals. What is needed: the principles, concepts and informed professional guidance that make up true doctrine.