“The world today can be much better understood if you think of it from the perspective of regions and not states,” said Gen. Jim Jones
For all the debate over how and if the State Department will engage foreign publics, lost in the shuffle is how the State Department remains bureaucratically focused on countries instead of regions. The Department of State must also become the Department of Non-State if it is to be effective in dealing with issues that transcend increasingly quaint ideas of bilateral diplomacy.
Today, as interagency activities between State and Defense increase, the map below highlights a lack of fundamental synchronicity in how each views the world. Of course, the lack of alignment in three critical area – Africa, Middle East, and South Asia – is nothing compared to the different in focus of each Department. Whereas the Defense Department operates predominately regionally, the State Department continues to function at the country level. This is a problem when public affairs officers in one country does not have the same priorities as the PAO in the neighboring country.
State must do more to be a partner, or a leader among equals, to Defense. Resources aside, ranks do not match, which creates problems with responsibilities both within organizations and when speaking to Congress or other organizations.
As collaboration between State and Defense increases, State and Defense must align how they divide up the world and adjust their organizations accordingly. As it is, State should adapt its nineteenth century model to Defense’s model. This means State needs to do some promoting and one elimination. State must get rid of the Under Secretary for Political Affairs and elevate the Assistant Secretaries in charge of each regional bureaus to Under Secretary, making the head of the regional bureau the equivalent of a four-star general and thus a co-equal, by rank, to the Combatant Commander. Whenever a Combatant Commander appears on the Hill, so to should the Regional Under Secretary.
I’ve received some push back on this structure because of the additional reporting to the Secretary of State, but if the Secretary of Defense can have Combatant Commanders report directly to him, why can’t the Secretary of State have Regional Bureaus report directly to here? Let’s flatten the hierarchy and move away from the 19th century alignment. Food for thought: should State instantiate a Joint Chiefs-like entity for an additional advisor?
Sure, Ambassadors would lose some independence as the Bureaus become more powerful as State shifts to a regional view from a country-level view, but this isn’t necessarily a zero-sum. (Side note: regarding Ambassadors, keep in mind that everyone at State and Defense are the President's representative.)
More details to come.
Map Source: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/65617.pdf. H/T to DF who scored big time finding the above map, a map I was about to bribe DF to create for me.
See also:
- Still Wanted (?): An Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy
- Wanted: an Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy
- Reforming U.S. Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century
- White Oak Recommendations: Rethinking Public Diplomacy
- Informal Summary of 18 Public Diplomacy Reports and their Recommendations by Steven R. Corman
Follow on Twitter
Sounds like a great proposal. It makes sense to model a structure that is failing on one that is successful. With time those employees that don't appreciate the change will go their own ways and institutionalization can take hold.
Of course that makes sense and of course it should happen. While we're at it DOD should reconsider some of its lines so that India and Pakistan are not in separate COCOMs. While we're at it, Israel should not be considered part of Europe while Turkey is part of CENTCOM, although of course that change will never happen for political reasons.
Of course as long as State is run by people whose life goal is to have the title Ambassador, the focus will remain on countries, not regions.