Removing the drain plug from the State Department?

[Twangbanger]

An interesting article about some moves Rex Tillerson is making at the State Department:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/2...rump_really_is_draining_the_swamp_414435.html

The most intriguing excerpt (to me, anyway):

"...[FONT=&amp]Tillerson has canceled the incoming class of foreign service officers. [/FONT][FONT=&amp]This as if the Navy told all of its incoming Naval Academy officers they weren’t needed. Senior officers have been unceremoniously pushed out. Many saw the writing on the wall and just retired, and many others are now awaiting buyout offers. He has dismissed State’s equivalent of an officer reserve—retired FSOs, who are often called upon to fill State’s many short-term staffing gaps, have been sent home despite no one to replace them.[/FONT][FONT=&amp] Office managers are now told three people must depart before they can make one hire..."[/FONT][FONT=&amp]


[/FONT]

 

[IndyDave1776]

Beautiful. The swamp is being drained, and the swamp really doesn't like it.

 

[Denny347]

Beautiful. The swamp is being drained, and the swamp really doesn't like it.

If it STAYS drained. Replacing one swamp with another is still a concern. I've seen it before.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Wow, he cancelled a class of incoming FSOs? That's a pretty dick move. Selection in time consuming and extremely competitive. The people that eventually reach FSO status are our best and brightest, and that's not hyperbole. Upon appointment for a new class, many people quit their jobs, and try to brush up on the career track they've chosen. I can see senior FSOs, but "new" ones? That's not draining the swamp... FSO often serve for decades, and across multiple administrations, with their sole purpose being the protection of the interests of the United States. Foreign diplomacy will surely be weakened by this act.

 

[Twangbanger]

Wow, he cancelled a class of incoming FSOs?.. I can see senior FSOs, but "new" ones? That's not draining the swamp...

But isn't this precisely what Denny is getting at, above? That the first step of draining the swamp, is turning off the faucet so it cannot refill itself?

If your goal is a lower headcount number - and for purposes of this discussion I'm putting aside whether that itself is good or bad - aborting ones you haven't hired yet would seem easier than terminating existing ones. The "hiring freeze" is the blunt instrument of headcount management, with a certain effectiveness to it that organizations can seldom ignore.

 

[Kutnupe14]

But isn't this precisely what Denny is getting at, above? That the first step of draining the swamp, is turning off the faucet so it cannot refill itself?

If your goal is a lower headcount number - and for purposes of this discussion I'm putting aside whether that itself is good or bad - aborting ones you haven't hired yet would seem easier than terminating existing ones. The "hiring freeze" is the blunt instrument of headcount management, with a certain effectiveness to it that organizations can seldom ignore.

Maybe, but truth be told, I don't think Tillerson did this because he wants the "drain the swamp." I think this occurred more so because this administration has slashed funding to the State Department by 30%, and they can't afford the new blood.

 

[Trigger Time]

Good cut the waste

 

[ruger1800]

If you like your swamp you can keep your swamp or as the current administration is doing, make your own swamp

 

[BigMatt]

Maybe, but truth be told, I don't think Tillerson did this because he wants the "drain the swamp." I think this occurred more so because this administration has slashed funding to the State Department by 30%, and they can't afford the new blood.

What's the problem?

 

[Kutnupe14]

What's the problem?

Well, I think there are much better candidates for a 30% budget cut than the State Department.

 

[Twangbanger]

Well, I think there are much better candidates for a 30% budget cut than the State Department.

Suddenly makes it clear why you wanted Mitt Romney running it.

It just seems like the sequester argument all over again. Everybody sees their particular corner of the swamp as the "untouchable jacuzzi warmup area."

 

[Kutnupe14]

Suddenly makes it clear why you wanted Mitt Romney running it.

It just seems like the sequester argument all over again. Everybody sees their particular corner of the swamp as the "untouchable jacuzzi warmup area."

Are you clear what the State Department does? In a world where I'd like a smaller US military footprint around the world, to avoid being dragged into conflicts we shouldn't be in, the trade-off is a robust diplomatic arm. Unless one wants American military assets scattered across the globe, I can see no benefit in slashing the effectiveness of Department of State. I would direct you to General Maddis' opinion on the issue. Hint: He doesn't like it either.

 

[Twangbanger]

Are you clear what the State Department does? In a world where I'd like a smaller US military footprint around the world, to avoid being dragged into conflicts we shouldn't be in, the trade-off is a robust diplomatic arm. Unless one wants American military assets scattered across the globe, I can see no benefit in slashing the effectiveness of Department of State. I would direct you to General Maddis' opinion on the issue. Hint: He doesn't like it either.

But it seems like you're positing sort of a false exchange. During the times we got pulled into stupid entanglements - was not the State Department fully-staffed?

When do we start seeing less neverending war, as a result of all these politically-appointed lackeys (and / or other more deserving folks) holding down jobs?

Mitt wanted that job _bad_. Do you really believe he groveled his jowls off out of a desire to keep us out of wars? Or to follow the path established by the "Grand Dame of Diplomacy" who walked that "walk of shame" before him, and set up his own peeps with some "Haiti Relief Juice" (or whatever)?

...Giuliani?

Can the tempered, experienced hands of State not still keep us out of wars with 30% less?

 

[Leadeye]

Something tells me they'll all get jobs at beltway consulting firms and we'll end up paying them anyway.

always follow the money

 

[Alamo]

Wow, he cancelled a class of incoming FSOs? That's a pretty dick move. Selection in time consuming and extremely competitive. The people that eventually reach FSO status are our best and brightest, and that's not hyperbole. Upon appointment for a new class, many people quit their jobs, and try to brush up on the career track they've chosen. I can see senior FSOs, but "new" ones? That's not draining the swamp... FSO often serve for decades, and across multiple administrations, with their sole purpose being the protection of the interests of the United States. Foreign diplomacy will surely be weakened by this act.

I would like to see verification that these are the best and the brightest... I have gotten the impression that the source of much "new blood" has been from a very small Ivy League pool, and have also read senior FSO complaints that new officers hired over the last few years are extremely shallow in the their knowledge. Heavy on social justice and climate alarm, short on actual history of how the international situation came to be. I've thought for some time the State Dept as well as the rest of the government would be greatly advantaged if they cast a wider net and accepted a broader range of applicants.

The FSO that recently served as Ambassador to Qatar was not a stellar example of FSO commitment to mission, and I can say that the one ambassador I met in the ME while on duty did not hide her political orientation, one opposite of the President she was serving under, so I have some doubt that she faithfully executed her mission when we couldn't see what she was doing. Frankly, the military seems to have had much more success and access in diplomatic contacts in the Mideast than our State Department.

By the way, I find your conclusion that a smaller military footprint and a larger State Department can help us "avoid being dragged into conflicts we shouldn't be in" to be hilarious after the recent debacles by the former SecStates and POTUS.

 

[jbombelli]

Wow, he cancelled a class of incoming FSOs? That's a pretty dick move. Selection in time consuming and extremely competitive. The people that eventually reach FSO status are our best and brightest, and that's not hyperbole. Upon appointment for a new class, many people quit their jobs, and try to brush up on the career track they've chosen. I can see senior FSOs, but "new" ones? That's not draining the swamp... FSO often serve for decades, and across multiple administrations, with their sole purpose being the protection of the interests of the United States. Foreign diplomacy will surely be weakened by this act.

Maybe they need less decoy GLG 20s these days? Or maybe they all failed the Radical Vertical Impact Simulation?

 

[BigMatt]

Well, I think there are much better candidates for a 30% budget cut than the State Department.

All of the US agencies and departments deserve at least a 30% budget cut. This is a good start.

I don't think Trump gives a hoot which department any of us think deserves the first cut.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Well, I think there are much better candidates for a 30% budget cut than the State Department.

I would say that there are at least a couple of excellent candidates for a 100% budget cut.

 

[Kutnupe14]

But it seems like you're positing sort of a false exchange. During the times we got pulled into stupid entanglements - was not the State Department fully-staffed?

When do we start seeing less neverending war, as a result of all these politically-appointed lackeys (and / or other more deserving folks) holding down jobs?

Mitt wanted that job _bad_. Do you really believe he groveled his jowls off out of a desire to keep us out of wars? Or to follow the path established by the "Grand Dame of Diplomacy" who walked that "walk of shame" before him, and set up his own peeps with some "Haiti Relief Juice" (or whatever)?

...Giuliani?

Can the tempered, experienced hands of State not still keep us out of wars with 30% less?

No, I think you're the one with false exchange. Your premise is, essentially, that the foreign service must stop every stupid US entanglement in order to be looked upon as being beneficial. You might as well say cops are failures because they don't deter all crime. The logic is the same. You never know of what has been avoided due to a particular action, but the the things that do happen, you find fault the institution tasked with trying to prevent it.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I would say that there are at least a couple of excellent candidates for a 100% budget cut.

I can agree with that.