Thoughts on the Dissent Channel

From February 2, 2017

I find it hard to believe, but once again the State Department's "Dissent Channel" has made the news.  The last time it made the news was during the Bush 43 years in regards to Iraq.  (I would like to assume it was just an oversight that its use to express concern over the Obama Administration's Syria policy was downplayed -- if not ignored -- by the press, but I'm not that stupid.) Once again it is on the front page of the national papers, this time because as many as 1000 (or more) State employees are expressing solidarity with an anti-"Muslim Ban" Dissent Channel cable.

As a former FSO, I am, of course, familiar with the Dissent Channel although I never had reason to use it myself.  That was not just because it was described to me by more experienced officers as the "Suicide Channel."  One is left to themselves to determine the accuracy of that euphemism, but things in Foggy Bottom have clearly changed since those days.  Secretary Powell went so far as to create an award for productive dissent, so clearly the culture has warmed to the concept.  

The Dissent Channel is valuable in concept, and if used correctly, valuable in practice as well.  Beyond the Big Issue use that always grabs headlines, FSO posted overseas are in a unique disadvantage when compared to their Civil Service cousins.  If an employee at any other agency disagrees with a policy or decision, they are able to offer their in-person, whether in a meeting, working group or one-on-one with their managers.  An FSO is all too often simply viewed as a mouthpiece useful only for "delivering the mail."  Especially in the days prior to email and similar simplification of communication -- when the Cable was the only real communication between Washington and the field -- there were precious few opportunities for an FSO to communicate their thoughts.  Thus, the value of a Dissent Channel.  

But availing oneself of the Dissent Channel should be, like expressing an opinion at meeting in any Department or Agency, an internal matter.  It should not be a public statement of disagreement with the Administration.  I have strong thoughts on the role of civil servants (including FSO and the uniformed services) taking their disagreement with Administration policy (ANY Administration) to the public.  It is wrong, and doing so makes the civil servant in question look petty and embarrasses the bureaucracy as a whole.  They are there, in the end, to carry out policies made by the politicians and their appointees.  Civil servants can, and should, assist in formulating that policy.  Once formulated, however, it is there job to carry it out.  I served every Administration between Bush 41 and Obama.  During that time I advocated some positions that I supported and often those that I didn't. Never did it occur to me to complain about it in public, let alone attend a workshop to learn how to impede progress.

So I applaud whichever FSO availed themes (or selves) of the Dissent Channel.  While I suspect that the Trump Administration is not one that will place much value in taking the ideas of others into future consideration, the Officers can take comfort in doing what the system allows them to do.  With equal conviction I condemn those that seem more intent to telling the Washington Post that they also express dissent, more concerned about being seen to do the "right" thing than actually doing it.

For what it's worth, I am getting tired of writing pieces that could be colored as defenses of Trump, who has yet to give me any iota of hope that I may like any of his foreign policy initiatives. My next article will not, I promise, be another such piece.