I've worked for State for the past ten years, and couldn't agree more with nearly everything said here. It's not exactly true that State officers get no training outside of language - officers are required to take one-week leadership courses at each career level, and there are countless courses available on subjects ranging from "Promoting U.S. Wines Abroad" (a two-hour seminar) to Political Tradecraft (3 weeks), Oil and Gas Industry (3 days), Arms Control (3 days), etc. But overall, I very much agree that in comparison to military officers, the training offered to Foreign Service Officers is lame at best. The Foreign Service has no culture of continuous learning and training like the military. This must change.

Sadly, State has nothing similar to CENTCOM's plans to develop a task force to "help nations in the region govern effectively, build their economies and provide security to their people. It will also try to communicate America’s foreign policy intentions clearly." Each regional bureau within State should have such an office, but creating something like this would take years and is far beyond the current resources available at State.

State does have its own "in-house think tank" in the form of the Policy Planning Staff, but I have to admit that even after ten years at State I have little idea what the Policy Planning Staff (or S/P, as we call it at State) actually does. I've never once read or been asked to contribute to or clear on an S/P product, even though when I worked as a desk officer I had to submit practically everything I drafted, even the most mundane sets of talking points, to S/P for clearance.

My sincere hope is that the new administration will turn things around and begin to reverse the effects of years of neglect of State.

The core problem is that the State Department sees its role as negotiation & understanding their assigned nation & people. This is the source of great knowledge about how to deal with other nations on terms the nations themselves will more easily accept. The flip side (or downside to some) is that State often begins to be the advocate for their international counterparts instead of advocates for American interests. The complete reverse is true of the DoD: They're entire raison d'etre is to bend foreign nations to America's Will. If necessary, by destroying them. This "predisposition to coercion" is why they are far more suited to actions meant to CHANGE another country or culture (instead of UNDERSTANDING another country or culture). Generally speaking, it is much harder to change (i.e. coerce/destroy) than to listen to them & learn. This is a fundamental genetic difference between these cultures, perfectly understandable and necessary, and the source of the different resource levels.

Giving State a bigger budget would be a waste; their culture is incompatible with the purpose of the money: to change their assigned country, not defend it.

Staring in Disbelief I thought the role of a countries diplomatic core had a lot to do with explaining and defending country A's position to country B while at the same time making sure that A's policy makers were fully aware of B's view and positions.

If you are right and State thinks its job is to send out people to 'change their assigned countries' then the US's list of friends will continue to bleed countries into the list of enemies column. Obviously if the aim is to crush dissent by force of arms rather then coexistence then the current DoD/DoS balance makes perfect sense.

JJackson is right. It's not State's role to "change" societies, and it's naive and dangerous to think that we can change or transform other societies or systems of governance except at the very margins. Unfornately, too many people in the U.S. think we have the capacity or the responsibility to change or significantly influence other cultures or the way other countries function. We don't, and we can't.

Of course we need to stand up for human rights and promote democracy, but we need to be realistic as to what we can achieve.

JJackson: One of us misread my posting (I think it was you). I agree with you completely re: State's role: that's what I thought I said. I was not saying it was State's job to change other countries (quite the opposite). I was saying that it was the DoD's job, and that difference was the source of the budgetary differences that Mr. Schake was lamenting in his article.

Nor should you assume I am advocating that we go around stomping distasteful regimes willy-nilly (like Zimbabwe, for example, as good as that would feel in the short run). However, the occasional "crushing of dissent" is most beneficial to civilization when the dissenters are Slavers, Fascists, Nazis, Communists, Terrorists, and Mass Murderers.

Staring in Disbelief. It seems to me that there's a fundamental flaw in your argument. How can one hope to change something that one does not understand? Therefore the idea that the State Department's role of, as you say, "negotiation & understanding their assigned nation & people" is not key to the process of change - changing attitudes, changing perspectives, changing positions - seems a little strange.

By understanding local movements, local controversies, and how local arguments about the direction of a country play out between native NGO's, politicians, political groups, universities, academics, media members, you can influence these movements. Diplomacy (and thus the DoS) is ideally suited to this purpose as much as the DoD is suited to bashing heads, bombing, and building. I think the problem is one of resources and not culture or "the inherent nature of the State Department." The problem is that there aren't enough people or resources put to the problem of understanding and negotiation. Without them, as we see now, DoD's attempts to change are not working out so well because they don't even know what they're trying to change.

"How about advancing democracy? Strengthening civil society? Showing people in societies threatened by globalization the power of America’s creed of opportunity and self-reliance?"

America as Vatican City. I can't make up my mind whether to curse your insufferable arrogance or laugh. You're living in 1955.
The US is a nation among nations, and there are other republics in the world. They're not that impressed by us anymore, nor do they have reason to be. The diplomatic corps of a democracy should made of internationalists with a special fondness for their homeland not nativists with a degrees in foreign languages.
What a backwards M-F-ing country.

"How about advancing democracy? Strengthening civil society?"
The Saudi monarchy and Mubarak.
Pure genius.