1895 



Defense task is the maintenance of military potency and its use if 

 necessary ; the Department of State has the task of f acihtating peaceful 

 intercourse, negotiating the peaceful resolution of differences, and 

 constructing durable, mutually beneficial relations with other nations. 



Comparative priorities of war and diplomacy. — It is striking how- 

 disparate are the resources allocated to these two sets of functions, 

 and how disparate also are the degrees of sophistication with which 

 they are exercised. Defense maintains numerous research institutes, 

 has contractual relations for studies with many universities, has a 

 central strategic planning staff, operates man}^ policy training institu- 

 tions (four War Colleges, Industrial College, Naval Postgraduate 

 School, Air University, etc.), three service academies, elaborate 

 intelligence s^^stems, and large publishing systems of manuals and 

 textbooks. State's resources in the fields of policy and training — even 

 in diplomacy — are dwarfed by comparison. 



It could be contended that the conduct of diplomacy is a more 

 exacting intellectual art than the conduct of war or military pre- 

 paredness. And also, that preparation for diplomacy requires more 

 information, more academic preparation, more research and analysis, 

 than that for defense. And finallj^, that the investment in technology 

 relevant to peaceful relations among countries, including foreign aid, 

 bilateral programs, and multilateral projects of the United Nations, 

 amounts to less than the budget for the development of new military 

 technology. For both departments the study of technology, its appli- 

 cations and impacts, is of foremost importance in the present-day 

 world; but while the study of technological factors in modern warfare 

 is remarkably well developed, the study of ways to manage technology 

 on a national and global basis to avert warfare situations is largely 

 neglected. 



Opportunities to strengthen diplomatic institutions. — The institu- 

 tions of the Department of State were explored in one study of this 

 series in an effort to identify those that could be amplified for the task. 

 Few were found that could serve this purpose strongly or durably. 



What would seem to be needed is a stronger emphasis on long-range 

 and mid-range planning of technological aspects of U.S. foreign policy, 

 a gradual but steady increase in technological sophistication through- 

 out the Department, improved access of the Department's technolo- 

 gists to the policy structure in the Executive Office of the President, a 

 stronger role in coordinating the policy of international elements of 

 mission agencies, and a closer and more constructive relationship with 

 the technological community in the United States. 



Separate units might be set up in the Department for planning on 

 different time scales, with the long-range planning institution insulated 

 from the day-to-day pressures of operational diplomacy and given a 

 strong mandate and support by the Secretary to remain thus insulated, 

 unlike its predecessors. 



Both kinds of planning units might be supported by two kinds of 

 research assistance under contract — a wholly funded, private, not-for- 

 profit corporation like Rand or Aerospace, and a looser set of con- 

 tractual relations with a number of academic institutions to perform 

 research tasks on order or to conduct exploratory studies selected by 

 themselves. The latter institutions might also maintain training pro- 

 grams for Department personnel on leave, or for Foreign Service 



