# A former State Department bigwig unloads. - Quite a read! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 22, 2005, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-former-state-department-bigwig-unloads-quite-a-read/327452 "2005-10-22T19:42:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2005, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-former-state-department-bigwig-unloads-quite-a-read/327452/1 "2005-10-22T19:42:10Z")
Not a debate but more in tune with the sensibilities of this forum than any others. Mods move if you must. > [@](#): > > Now he is off the State Department payroll. In a speech this week to the New America Foundation, he laid out what I think may be the most blisteringly contemptuous critique yet of the Bush administration by a.former high-ranking official > [@](#): > > The case that I saw for four-plus years was a case that I have never seen in my study of aberrations, bastardizations, perturbations, changes to the national security decision-making process. What I saw was a cabal between the vice-president of the United States, Richard Cheney, and the secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, on critical issues that made decisions that the bureaucracy didn’t know were being made. And then when the bureaucracy was presented with the decision to carry them out, it was presented in such a disjointed, incredible way that the bureaucracy often didn’t know what it was doing as it moved to carry them out. [SLATE- A former State Department bigwig unloads.](http://slate.msn.com/id/2128535/) [Direct link to speech](http://www.newamerica.net/Download_Docs/pdfs/Doc_File_2644_1.pdf) (pdf file) ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2005, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-former-state-department-bigwig-unloads-quite-a-read/327452/2 "2005-10-22T20:05:42Z")
Doesn’t surprise me. My dad just retired from the State Department after 23 years (including two years of Intel). He was there through every administation since Reagan and says that W, by far has been the least competent and the most disliked by the Department. I recently asked him how Secretary Rice was being perceived within the Department (my dad had respect for Powell but thought he was really more of a Defense guy than a State guy. The UN speech really cost him some respect points in State, though). He said that since Rice had taken over, her job became all about superficial PR and scripted appearances. “All they care about is how she looks on camera,” he told me. Similar to other things I’ve read about the Bush White House, actual policy now takes a backseat to politics and staging. My dad is so disgusted by the Bush White House that he chose to remain in Brazil after he retired rather than return to the States. Ironically, he thought Bush Sr. (whom he spent a few days driving around Brasilia when Poppy was Veep) was extremely intelligent and had a very natural grasp of foreign policy. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2005, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-former-state-department-bigwig-unloads-quite-a-read/327452/3 "2005-10-22T20:16:13Z")
The bigwig in question was former Sec. of State Colin Powell’s chief of staff Lawrence Wilkerson. If we want to make a debate out of this, we might consider this part of his remarks: > [@](#): > > Why did we create the national director of intelligence and add further to the bureaucracy, which was what caused the problem in the first place? The problem is not sharing information. The problem is not that we don’t have enough feet on the ground or enough people collecting intelligence or enough $40 billion eyes in the sky – national technical means. That’s not the problem. The problem is our people don’t share. The problem is the FBI is over here in its niche, and the CIA is over here, and INR is here, and Treasury is here, and the DIA is here, and the NSA is here, and the NRO is here, and god almighty, they never talk to each other. They don’t share. They don’t pass information around. They don’t work in the same cultures. They don’t have the same attitude about the information they’re handling, sometimes for good reason. Some are domestic law enforcement; some are not. > > There are all kinds of problems that need to be dealt with and we are not going to make it into the 21 st century very far and keep our power intact and our powder dry if we don’t start to deal with this need to change the decision-making process, and an understanding of that need, which, for whatever reason, intuitive or intellectual I don’t know, I’ll give credit to the Bush administration for, by suddenly concentrating power in one tiny little aspect of the federal government and letting that little cabal make the decisions. That’s not a recipe for success. It’s a recipe for good decision-making in terms of the speed and alacrity with which you can make decisions, of course. Harlan and I can sit down and we can make a decision probably a lot faster than all of you and me can make a decision, but if all of you bring something to the fight and will be integral in the implementation of the decision I’m going to make, and if you know some things I don’t know and you might dissent because of those things you know, I damn well better listen to you, and I better figure out a way to get all of you to work together if we finally come to a decision and we decide to implement that. I better know how to get you to work together. We know that the current Administration is not much for transparency or dissent, but encourages close-knit high-level teamwork and strong loyalty in the ranks. Is this, as Wilkerson suggests, having a bad effect on the executive branch’s ability to make good decisions? Are they being so streamlined and close-mouthed and all-on-the-same-page that they’re just not getting the diverse information they need to know? Dio’s comments about Rice are interesting in light of this other part of Wilkerson’s remarks: > [@](#): > > And to myself I said, okay, put on your academic hat; who’s causing this? Well, the national security adviser. Even if the framers didn’t envision that position, even if it’s not subject to confirmation by the Senate, the national security advisor should be doing a better job. […] in most cases it was Dr. Rice made a decision, she made a decision – and this is all about people again because people in essence are the government. She made a decision that she would side with the president to build her intimacy with the president. > > And so what we had was a situation where the national security advisor, seen in the evolution over some half-century since the [1947 National Security] act as the balancer or the person who would make sure all opinions got to the president, the person who would make sure that every dissent got to the president that made sense – not every one but the ones that made sense – actually was a part of the problem, and probably on many issues sided with the president and the vice president and the secretary of Defense. And so what you had – and here I am the academic again – you had this incredible process where the formal process, the statutory process, the policy coordinating committee, the deputies committee, the principal’s committee, all camouflaged – the dysfunctionality camouflaged the efficiency of the secret decision-making process. > > And so we got into Iraq, and so George Packer quotes Richard Haas in his book as saying, “To this day I still don’t know why we went to war in Iraq.” Again, the claim seems to be that the Administration is so focused on being a cooperative team that they’re not able to debate what they’re actually doing and why. Is this true? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2005, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-former-state-department-bigwig-unloads-quite-a-read/327452/4 "2005-10-22T20:16:31Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Ironically, he thought Bush Sr. (whom he spent a few days driving around Brasilia when Poppy was Veep) was extremely intelligent and had a very natural grasp of foreign policy. Just out of curiosity, why is that ironic? There are many people who dislike the son, but like the father. Their approaches to foreign policy aren’t very similar. Having been ambassador to China and the head of the CIA, it shouldn’t be surprising that Bush Sr knew a thing or two about that subject. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2005, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-former-state-department-bigwig-unloads-quite-a-read/327452/5 "2005-10-22T20:44:15Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Just out of curiosity, why is that ironic? There are many people who dislike the son, but like the father. Their approaches to foreign policy aren’t very similar. Having been ambassador to China and the head of the CIA, it shouldn’t be surprising that Bush Sr knew a thing or two about that subject. Maybe “ironic” was the wrong word. I wanted to make note of that contrast in order to make a point that my father’s negative opinion of Bush’ foreign policy abilities is not partisan in nature. He’s had positive things to say about former Republican SOS’s and not so great things to say about some Democratic ones (Albright, for instance he described as “hell to work with on a vist”- his coded way of saying she was a bitch). With Bush II, some of the autonomy and purpose of the State Department has been impeded by an attitude in the White House that the Department is there to be a political servant to the White House and that any disagreement, dissent or even basic attempt to provide or correct factual information which the WH doesn’t like is seen as disruptive and “disloyal.” ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2005, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-former-state-department-bigwig-unloads-quite-a-read/327452/6 "2005-10-22T20:52:01Z")
Don’t worry. I heard Rush say that the problems in the State Department means that Bush is doing a great job of cleaning house and getting everyone up to speed. He said that the article was proof that Bush is doing a fantastic job, and the liberal media is just blowing hot air. Rush would never lie. Would he? _Would he???_. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2005, 7:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-former-state-department-bigwig-unloads-quite-a-read/327452/7 "2005-10-23T07:03:10Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Rush would never lie. Would he? _Would he???_. It’d be easier just to list the instances when Rush has told the truth. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2005, 9:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-former-state-department-bigwig-unloads-quite-a-read/327452/8 "2005-10-23T09:33:45Z")
> [@](#): > > on critical issues that made decisions that the bureaucracy didn’t know were being made. I don’t see the problem here. The bureaucracy are not the decision-makers; the executive is and the bureaucrats are there to implement the decisions. Sounds like Sir Humphrey is having sour grapes. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2005, 11:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-former-state-department-bigwig-unloads-quite-a-read/327452/9 "2005-10-23T11:27:30Z")
[Here’s a HTML transcript](http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/Wilkerson%20Speech%20--%20WEB.htm), for easier cutting and pasting. Wilkerson was not only Colin Powell’s chief of staff from 2002 until early 2005 when Powell resigned, but also former State Department associate director of policy planning, and director of the US Marine Corps War College. He’s got quite a combination of military, academic, and governmental background. And despite being Colin Powell’s chief of staff as we were getting ready to go into Iraq, he doesn’t know why we invaded either: > [@Lawrence Wilkerson](#): > > George Packer quotes Richard Haas in his book as saying, “To this day I still don’t know why we went to war in Iraq.” I can go through all the things we listed, from WMD to human rights to – I can go through it – terrorism, but I really can’t sit here and tell you, George, why we went to war in Iraq. It’s been clear since [May 11, 2003](http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A40212-2003May10?language=printer) that we didn’t go to war over WMDs, but it’s never been publicly clear why Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, or whoever really decided to take us to war there. Perhaps, as Wolfowitz suggested back in 2003, there was no one single reason, and WMDs were the public reason that the principals could all agree on. But it’s pretty damned scary when someone as high up as Wilkerson says _he_ doesn’t know the answer to this question. > [@Lawrence Wilkerson](#): > > fundamental decisions about foreign policy should not be made in secret. I don’t think there’s a debate about this. But any remaining Bush defenders here who are NOT prepared to debate this must note that Bush violated this rule, in spades, in taking us into Iraq. Because if Wilkinson admits he doesn’t know why we went to war there, then neither do you. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2005, 11:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-former-state-department-bigwig-unloads-quite-a-read/327452/10 "2005-10-23T11:39:32Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > I don’t see the problem here. The bureaucracy are not the decision-makers; the executive is and the bureaucrats are there to implement the decisions. Sounds like Sir Humphrey is having sour grapes. Wilkerson answers that question like this: > [@](#): > > Let me tell you the practical reason – and here I’m jumping over really into both realms, the practical reasons why that’s true. You have probably all read books on leadership: “The Seven Habits of Successful People,” or whatever. If you as a member of the bureaucracy do not participate in a decision, you are not going to carry that decision out with the alacrity, the efficiency and the effectiveness you would if you have participated. When you cut the bureaucracy out of your decisions and then foist your decisions, more or less out of the blue, on that bureaucracy, you can’t expect that bureaucracy to carry your decision out very well. And furthermore, if you’re not prepared to stop the feuding elements in that bureaucracy as they carry out your decision, you’re courting disaster. And a little further down: > [@](#): > > Remember what I said about the bureaucracy, if it’s going to implement your decisions, having to participate in those decisions. And let me add one other dimension to that. If you accept the fact – and I do today, and if you’ll look around you at some of these magazine covers – I don’t need any more testimony than that I don’t think – the complexity of crises that confront governments today is just unprecedented. Let me say that again: The complexity of the crises that confront governments today are just unprecedented. > > At the same time, especially in America – but I submit to you in Japan, in China, and in a number of other countries soon to be probably the European Union, it’s just as bad, if not in some ways worse – the complexity of governing is unprecedented. You simply cannot deal with all the challenges that government has to deal with, meet all the demands that government has to meet in the modern age, in the 21st century, without admitting that it is hugely complex. That doesn’t mean you have to add a Department of Homeland Security with 70,000 disparate entities thrown under somebody in order to handle them, but it does mean that your bureaucracy has got to be staffed with good people, and they’ve got to work together, and they’ve got to work under leadership they trust and leadership that on basic issues they agree with, and that if they don’t agree, they can dissent and dissent and dissent. And if their dissent is such that they feel so passionate about it, they can resign and know why they’re resigning. > > That is not the case today. And when I say that is not the case today, I stop on 26 January 2005. I don’t know what the case is today; I wish I did. But the case that I saw for four-plus years was a case that I have never seen in my studies of aberrations, bastardizations, perturbations, changes to the national security decision-making process. What I saw was a cabal between the vice president of the United States, Richard Cheney, and the secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld on critical issues that made decisions that the bureaucracy did not know were being made. And then when the bureaucracy was presented with the decision to carry them out, it was presented in a such a disjointed, incredible way that the bureaucracy often didn’t know what it was doing as it moved to carry them out. And: > [@](#): > > Harlan and I can sit down and we can make a decision probably a lot faster than all of you and me can make a decision, but if all of you bring something to the fight and will be integral in the implementation of the decision I’m going to make, and if you know some things I don’t know and you might dissent because of those things you know, I damn well better listen to you, and I better figure out a way to get all of you to work together if we finally come to a decision and we decide to implement that. I better know how to get you to work together. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2005, 11:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-former-state-department-bigwig-unloads-quite-a-read/327452/11 "2005-10-23T11:49:29Z")
The Bush bunker is going to be getting shell shocked. [Brent Scowcroft](http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20051021-051052-6225r) is going to launch his own attack in Monday’s New Yorker magazine. > [@](#): > > Scowcroft’s criticisms will be taken seriously at the highest levels of the Bush administration because he is seen as a mentor by some of its senior figures, notably Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, whose political career began when she worked under Scowcroft as an adviser on Soviet affairs. I don’t quite buy that line, this White House does not take criticism seriously. But if the article is correct in what Scowcroft will have to say, it sure doesn’t look good for the Bush team. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2005, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-former-state-department-bigwig-unloads-quite-a-read/327452/12 "2005-10-23T14:11:09Z")
These after-the-fact criticisms are all very well, but where in hell were these guys when it mattered? Where were they when the UN inspectors were not finding anything that the US administrations claimed to be present and a justification for war? Where were they when Colin Powell gave the UN a bunch of bullshit? Where were they when the Congress was being rushed into a hasty and paniced approval of the resolution authorizing GW to do as he saw fit? Nowhere, that’s where. The only people trying to get us to take a deep breath and think things over a little were those of us with no voice in the matter. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2005, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-former-state-department-bigwig-unloads-quite-a-read/327452/13 "2005-10-23T14:18:20Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > Nowhere, that’s where. The only people trying to get us to take a deep breath and think things over a little were those of us with no voice in the matter. Those of us whose entire career didn’t depend on keeping the Bush White House happy. ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2005, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-former-state-department-bigwig-unloads-quite-a-read/327452/14 "2005-10-23T14:20:57Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > These after-the-fact criticisms are all very well, but where in hell were these guys when it mattered? Where were they when the UN inspectors were not finding anything that the US administrations claimed to be present and a justification for war? Where were they when Colin Powell gave the UN a bunch of bullshit? Where were they when the Congress was being rushed into a hasty and panicked approval of the resolution authorizing GW to do as he saw fit? > > Nowhere, that’s where. The only people trying to get us to take a deep breath and think things over a little were those of us with no voice in the matter. Too true. Closer to home, where were the voices on this message board that knew for a fact the game the administration was up to? Was there even one that said “Well yeah, I’ve got the straight dope and them bunch of liberals are right on the money”? Even one? If not, why not? Have we even had that explained to us? It’s called getting your money’s worth people. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2005, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-former-state-department-bigwig-unloads-quite-a-read/327452/15 "2005-10-23T14:39:42Z")
Wilkerson is simply verifying what Powell had said earlier, which just verified what Kwiatkowski and Wilson said way earlier. People were rasing the flag. The problem was, it didn’t follow the party line. There were plenty of libruls on the Dope saying it too. But, not one of the listed people makes the decisions. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2005, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-former-state-department-bigwig-unloads-quite-a-read/327452/16 "2005-10-23T14:40:08Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > These after-the-fact criticisms are all very well, but where in hell were these guys when it mattered? To be fair, there was [John Brady Kiesling](http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl-resignation.htm). The rest of them may have thought they could still do more good inside the system, and maybe could help nudge the ship away from the rocks, but speaking up in public would result in their removal from the system. The critics, who all turned out to be essentially right, were getting blasted as anti-American, defeatist, pessimist, “You simply hate Bush, admit it” - and that includes a number of people on this board who have since shut up and slunk away. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2005, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-former-state-department-bigwig-unloads-quite-a-read/327452/17 "2005-10-23T15:06:19Z")
> [@](#): > > Wilkerson answers that question like this: Sorry, but that’s Civil Service rubbish. That’s almost striaght out of _Yes, Minister_ ---
**Author:** ![ShibbOleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/848f3c/32.png) [@ShibbOleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ShibbOleth)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2005, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-former-state-department-bigwig-unloads-quite-a-read/327452/18 "2005-10-23T15:17:51Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > Sorry, but that’s Civil Service rubbish. That’s almost striaght out of _Yes, Minister_ What is your expertise in this matter? Have you ever worked in an organization? Even though the bureaucracy should support the leadership, the leadership should also listen to the bureaucracy. By this I mean in the sense that the bureaucracy is the on-the-ground, close to the problems mechanism. So they know when they have issues, what holds things up, what practically works and what doesn’t. It’s not just that the orders be carried out efficiently, although that is a huge issue. It’s that information needs to flow in both directions. Just because it’s played for laughs in a television show doesn’t mean that it’s not reality. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2005, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-former-state-department-bigwig-unloads-quite-a-read/327452/19 "2005-10-23T15:40:55Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > Sorry, but that’s Civil Service rubbish. That’s almost striaght out of _Yes, Minister_ Care to justify / explain the basis for your dismissal of expert opinion? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2005, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-former-state-department-bigwig-unloads-quite-a-read/327452/20 "2005-10-23T15:55:23Z")
Well, **Pat** , there you go again! Always on about “facts”, as if they mattered! Facts are relevent when they support policy. Otherwise, they are but niggling detritus, to be swept up and discreetly plopped down the memory hole. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-former-state-department-bigwig-unloads-quite-a-read/327452.md?page=2)