I would add living/studying abroad while not in a position of bureaucratic expectation, authority, or status-seeking (admittedly hard once someone is already hired). A lack of on-the-ground experience with a culture, people, and language - in addition to the usual suspects of humans being human in a bureaucratic construct - leads to policy formulation and decisionmaking completely divorced from reality. Deep learning of historical outcomes from books & seminars and meta thinking on sound decisionmaking is wonderful but wildly insufficient.
I generally agree with your point that on-the-ground experience is an important ingredient for expertise in foreign policy, and just generally for being a thoughtful human. I think it expands our minds, develops our ability to empathize, and spotlights unchallenged assumptions about the way the world works. And the entire basis for this Substack is that our bureaucratic processes in foreign policy need to be improved.
But if you're also suggesting that we shouldn't trust people to make strategy on a country they haven't lived in lest they become "divorced from reality," I'm more skeptical. In fact, studies of good decision-making often show that people with the deepest experience on an issue tend to become more biased (wrong) than those who are more detached (see Tetlock and Mellers' work, for instance). I see that you were in intel ops. In my experience, people who spend the most time "in the field" tend to become quite cynical and distrustful of the policy process; "I know this country way better than those idiots in DC." Often true! Meanwhile, people in DC accuse field-bound folks of "going native" and failing to understand domestic political issues. Also often true!
My view is that the quality of a decision-making process depends on its ability to incorporate and evaluate a wide range of viewpoints. When we over-emphasize personal experience, this is a recipe for disaster: example here is Bush II meeting Puting and saying "I looked the man in the eye... I found him trustworthy." People always try to claim the superiority of their personal experience, and I think that's a dangerous impulse.
Another interesting question: With a government of our size, what are the right skills and experiences for different roles within the process: information collectors, analysts, strategists, etc.? Where in the process do you want people to invest in more on-the-ground experience? Should it be a prerequisite for every policy-maker? These are the types of questions that excite me.
With respect to number two, I think learning how to write memoranda quickly and succinctly is critical. Part of meeting deadlines is anticipating when your bosses have gaps in their schedules to clear your work so your principals have time to really consider it.
Great point. Often, unfortunately, the timeliness and rhetorical punch of a memo seem far more predictive of policy impact than the quality of one's ideas. It helps explain why speechwriters gain immense influence in national security.
Check your stats on FSI. Are "800" courses really offered, or are there 800 courses in the catalog? The two aren't the same. My experience trying to take courses at FSI (way back when I was in a position to do so) was *every single course I tried to take* was not offered nor was it likely to be offered in the foreseeable future despite being on the list of "available" courses. I had a relationship with FSI and I had spoke at FSI several times, so it wasn't entirely a foreign place to me. (I gave up trying to find a course after 10-12 picks and getting the same answer for each.) These "ghost" courses were created around an individual who rotated in to teach. Adapting an existing inactive course was apparently frowned upon, so they just made a new entry in the catalog. Hopefully that has change and the catelog trimmed of its ghost courses. My information is, admitedly, very dated. Related, FSI won't get elevated – or fixed – until State accepts that continuing education is essential to career advancement. This isn't a chicken and egg discussion: Main State needs demand change and hold people accountable for that change. Good luck with the fight, it's a worthy, necessary, and overdue.
Leadership by Henry Kissinger is a great book going through 6 significant leaders he met and their decision making. Though I’m not sure about the specific biographies, biographies about significant figures tell you a lot about events and pivotal figures at pivotal times. They should be combined with the auto biography if those exist. Reagan, Churchill, Coolidge and MacArthur all either have memoirs or autobiographies. I’m still making my way through them
I love reading biographies, but this article attempts to explain my feeling about why they should play a relatively small part in the development of expertise. I'm skeptical of our collective ability to learn how to make good decisions by studying others' decisions. Firstly, I don't think this is a good way to develop skills of our own. Second, even if we could sponge up skills by reading about others, I think the old models are outdated -- I think we should aspire to innovate and develop new skills, not simply replicate the status quo.
Here is a lesson that is more fitting: do you know what German foreign policy experts did after the failed world wars? Because all you can do when your leaders are corrupt or incompetent is hone your expertise and wait.
One intervention I'm aware of is that the Germans embarked on a major reform of their school curriculums, placing a heavy emphasis on epistemics, e.g. how does one know what's true? Facism seeks to erode the critical capacities of its citizens. One might suggest that the capacity for critical thinking (e.g. expertise) is a prerequisite for a healthy democracy. Through that lens, don't you think it's always a worthy investment for us to improve our expertise? (I'm not suggesting, to be clear, that all a country needs is "expertise" in order to thrive)
I would add living/studying abroad while not in a position of bureaucratic expectation, authority, or status-seeking (admittedly hard once someone is already hired). A lack of on-the-ground experience with a culture, people, and language - in addition to the usual suspects of humans being human in a bureaucratic construct - leads to policy formulation and decisionmaking completely divorced from reality. Deep learning of historical outcomes from books & seminars and meta thinking on sound decisionmaking is wonderful but wildly insufficient.
I generally agree with your point that on-the-ground experience is an important ingredient for expertise in foreign policy, and just generally for being a thoughtful human. I think it expands our minds, develops our ability to empathize, and spotlights unchallenged assumptions about the way the world works. And the entire basis for this Substack is that our bureaucratic processes in foreign policy need to be improved.
But if you're also suggesting that we shouldn't trust people to make strategy on a country they haven't lived in lest they become "divorced from reality," I'm more skeptical. In fact, studies of good decision-making often show that people with the deepest experience on an issue tend to become more biased (wrong) than those who are more detached (see Tetlock and Mellers' work, for instance). I see that you were in intel ops. In my experience, people who spend the most time "in the field" tend to become quite cynical and distrustful of the policy process; "I know this country way better than those idiots in DC." Often true! Meanwhile, people in DC accuse field-bound folks of "going native" and failing to understand domestic political issues. Also often true!
My view is that the quality of a decision-making process depends on its ability to incorporate and evaluate a wide range of viewpoints. When we over-emphasize personal experience, this is a recipe for disaster: example here is Bush II meeting Puting and saying "I looked the man in the eye... I found him trustworthy." People always try to claim the superiority of their personal experience, and I think that's a dangerous impulse.
Another interesting question: With a government of our size, what are the right skills and experiences for different roles within the process: information collectors, analysts, strategists, etc.? Where in the process do you want people to invest in more on-the-ground experience? Should it be a prerequisite for every policy-maker? These are the types of questions that excite me.
With respect to number two, I think learning how to write memoranda quickly and succinctly is critical. Part of meeting deadlines is anticipating when your bosses have gaps in their schedules to clear your work so your principals have time to really consider it.
Great point. Often, unfortunately, the timeliness and rhetorical punch of a memo seem far more predictive of policy impact than the quality of one's ideas. It helps explain why speechwriters gain immense influence in national security.
Check your stats on FSI. Are "800" courses really offered, or are there 800 courses in the catalog? The two aren't the same. My experience trying to take courses at FSI (way back when I was in a position to do so) was *every single course I tried to take* was not offered nor was it likely to be offered in the foreseeable future despite being on the list of "available" courses. I had a relationship with FSI and I had spoke at FSI several times, so it wasn't entirely a foreign place to me. (I gave up trying to find a course after 10-12 picks and getting the same answer for each.) These "ghost" courses were created around an individual who rotated in to teach. Adapting an existing inactive course was apparently frowned upon, so they just made a new entry in the catalog. Hopefully that has change and the catelog trimmed of its ghost courses. My information is, admitedly, very dated. Related, FSI won't get elevated – or fixed – until State accepts that continuing education is essential to career advancement. This isn't a chicken and egg discussion: Main State needs demand change and hold people accountable for that change. Good luck with the fight, it's a worthy, necessary, and overdue.
This is a great framework! Looking forward to seeing your suggested reading list :)
Voila: https://open.substack.com/pub/fp21/p/the-indefinitive-reading-list-for
Let me know what you think! It’s probably due for an update.
He should have read my stuff.
Leadership by Henry Kissinger is a great book going through 6 significant leaders he met and their decision making. Though I’m not sure about the specific biographies, biographies about significant figures tell you a lot about events and pivotal figures at pivotal times. They should be combined with the auto biography if those exist. Reagan, Churchill, Coolidge and MacArthur all either have memoirs or autobiographies. I’m still making my way through them
I love reading biographies, but this article attempts to explain my feeling about why they should play a relatively small part in the development of expertise. I'm skeptical of our collective ability to learn how to make good decisions by studying others' decisions. Firstly, I don't think this is a good way to develop skills of our own. Second, even if we could sponge up skills by reading about others, I think the old models are outdated -- I think we should aspire to innovate and develop new skills, not simply replicate the status quo.
No amount of expertise can save the USA for the next four years.
I know this isn't exactly your point, but I disagree with the implication that we should ever abandon the pursuit of expertise.
Here is a lesson that is more fitting: do you know what German foreign policy experts did after the failed world wars? Because all you can do when your leaders are corrupt or incompetent is hone your expertise and wait.
One intervention I'm aware of is that the Germans embarked on a major reform of their school curriculums, placing a heavy emphasis on epistemics, e.g. how does one know what's true? Facism seeks to erode the critical capacities of its citizens. One might suggest that the capacity for critical thinking (e.g. expertise) is a prerequisite for a healthy democracy. Through that lens, don't you think it's always a worthy investment for us to improve our expertise? (I'm not suggesting, to be clear, that all a country needs is "expertise" in order to thrive)
Truth hurts?
Good.
I got it I read it I love it ☦️🇷🇺☦️🇷🇺