Reinforcing that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice lacks the vision necessary to protect the United States, she emphasized yesterday the importance of states to her department’s mission:

Perhaps our greatest foreign policy challenge, now and in decades to come, then, stems from the many states that are simply too weak, too corrupt, or too poorly governed to perform even basic sovereign responsibilities like policing their territory, governing justly, enabling the potential of their people, and preventing the threats that gather within their countries from destabilizing their neighbors and ultimately, the international system.

In response to these unprecedented challenges, our foreign policy and national security strategy must be guided by the objective that I laid out here at Georgetown two years ago: to work with our many international partners to build and sustain a world of democratic, well-governed states that respond to the needs of their people, that reduce widespread poverty, and that conduct themselves responsibly in the international system.

Whereas the Defense Department sees beyond the Weberian constructs of bureaucratic entities that color the tiles on the map on the wall, State continues to be marginalized by its leadership.  One of the more interesting examples is this quote LAJ highlighted from SecState’s speech at Georgetown yesterday:

So as we continue to use our resources wisely and continue to transform the practice, posture, and purpose of our diplomacy, we will need greater capacity. How can it be, for example, that the Pentagon has nearly twice as many lawyers as America has Foreign Service Officers? How can it be that the United Kingdom, with one-fifth of our population, has a diplomatic service nearly as large as America’s?

The SecDef made more interesting comparisons a couple of weeks ago. 

Her comments coupled with observations that our PD/SC is at times little more than an incoherent whisper reminds me of the discussions and editorials behind Public Law 402. 

When was the last time SecState was subjected to questioning about USIA?  Does she get anything more than a passing request for a thought?  She is the traditional diplomat, at best, in a world where people and their opinions matter more than foreign ministries. 

How can State be expected to step up with this type of leadership?  Have we seen Rice get in front of Congress and other forums (like Georgetown) as Gates (or even Rumsfeld) has to argue the need to fund initiatives?  No.  It really is no wonder that Defense is moving ahead and filling the void. 

Hopefully new blood will reinvigorate and reintegrate State. 

H/T LAJ