Advice to a Family Member

<html><a rel=“license” href=“http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/”><img src=“http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png” style=“border-style: none;” alt=“Public Domain Mark” /></a> This work (by <a href=“https://lucianofsamosata.info/wiki” rel=“dct:creator”>https://lucianofsamosata.info/wiki</a>), identified by <a href=“http://meninpublishing.org” rel=“dct:publisher”>Frank Redmond</a>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</html>

The whole premise seems to be the qualified and passionate officers in the field are constantly stymied by changing administrations and politically connected upstarts.

So, you could be a foreign service officer for 20 years and not be appointed to a position within the administration, a wealthy donor has a better shot at being a DC policy planner. The wealthy donor is more visible to the administration; the foreign service officer has to peer through the web of red tape to get to the top.

But per the article it seems like the foreign service officers have the attitude that the world stage is more gray than black and white, yet policy planners are expected to think in black and white. The foreign service officers possess the vast knowledge necessary to do the right thing in the administration, but precisely because of this knowledge they are aware of the gradients on the international scene, which makes is harder to finalize and execute responsible policy.

Frustrating. As Herodotus says, “This is the bitterest pain among men, to have much knowledge but no power.”

Let's face it. It is rare for people on the top to understand what is happening on the ground. It's easier to pluck local people than a qualified individual serving in Chad.

The iron-fist of necessity and fate is quite the bitch.