Dashboard

Is the U.S. State Department up to the task in Iraq? An adviser wrapping up a tour in Iraq has fired a missive to Ambassador Ryan Crocker that is ricocheting through State Department inboxes. "The Foreign Service is not competent to do the job that they have undertaken in Iraq," wrote Manuel Miranda, who had just finished a year as a civilian advising Iraqi lawmakers on behalf of the U.S. embassy. Miranda accused U.S. diplomats of embracing "an excuse-making culture ... willfully negligent if not criminal" management, a "built-in attention-deficit disorder," and "information hoarding."

Miranda, who had previously served as a GOP aide on Capitol Hill, has a reputation as a fire breather. But in a speech at Georgetown's School of Foreign Service Feb. 12, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice spoke to some of the same problems that Miranda brought up: the training, focus and culture of the Foreign Service need to change, she said.

A batch of recent government and independent studies agree. America's most urgent foreign policy needs are no longer on the white-glove circuit of Europe's capitals but in dangerous conflict zones like Afghanistan and Iraq. The new diplomacy requires development work in postconflict areas, not just reporting the intrigues of foreign capitals. U.S. envoys have balked at the changes, but Rice--finally--is pushing back. She's started dispatching more diplomats to emerging powers like China and India, sent Foreign Service officers to mid-career schools for retraining, and emphasized foreign languages like Farsi, Urdu, Arabic and Chinese. Still, some lawmakers gripe that important new initiatives--including a State Department civilian reserve corps that could help with the dirty work of nation-building when needed--were neglected for too long in the Bush Administration. Leading U.S. efforts abroad is "a place not of privilege and not of entitlement," Rice told the aspiring diplomats at Georgetown. "We must earn it." The Administration's congressional critics couldn't agree more.