1412 



countries — are also important arms of policy and sources of overseas involve- 

 ment . ... At least two other agencies — Defense and CIA — are fully the equals 

 of State in power and influence, not only within the Executive Branch but on 

 Capitol Hill; while AID, USIA, and the Disarmament Agency, although nominally 

 part of State, are in fact semi-autonomous organizations, with separate budgets, 

 personnel hierarchies, and top-level management by energetic, independently- 

 minded political appointees. 



And, concludes the anal.yst: "The truth is that the growing complexity 

 of the international environment renders not only the State Depart- 

 ment but c^er}" other single agency of government incapable of coping 

 with the full range of international problems."'^ 



Policy Planning Organization and Reorganization 



Considerable effort has been expended since 1950 to strengthen the 

 resources and influence of the Department of State in diplomatic 

 policy planning, decisionmaking, and policy implementation. One of 

 the most successful of these, in the opinion of Dean Acheson, was the 

 postwar reorganization by General Marshall: "Lines of command 

 were clarified and the Under Secretary made chief of staff; line duties 

 separated from staff duties; supervision was made effective through 

 the Central Secretariat; planning — looking around, ahead, and 

 behind — confided to a competent staff; research and intelligence 

 centralized," ^^* 



During the administrations of President Eisenhower, John Foster 

 Dulles as Secretary of State made a determined effort to free himself 

 from the details of management and to free his Department from the 

 obligations of operational functions. At the same time an elaborate 

 policy structure was erected within the National Security Council to 

 massage as thoroughly as possible the issues that were to go to the 

 President. As President Kennedy prepared to take office, an extended 

 study was underway by the Subcommittee on National Policy Ma- 

 chinery of the Committee on Government Operations under the chair- 

 manship of Senator Henry M. Jackson. Under the general heading of 

 "Organizing for National Security," the subcommittee issued a series 

 of reports that repeatedly called for a strengthening of the policy 

 planning resources of the Department of State.'" In his final state- 



'23 Charles Maecliling, Jr., "Our Foreign Affairs Establishment: The Need for Reform," The Virginia 

 QnaTterly Revino 45, no. 2 (Spring 1969), pp. 200-202. 



i2< Acheson, "Eclipse of the State Department," Foreign Affairs, p. 601. 



126 For example, in the Committee Pnnt, U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Government Operations, 

 The National Security Council, 86th Cong., 2nd sess., November 12, 1960, p. 9: 



The Secretary of State is crucial to the successful operation of the Council. Other officials, partic- 

 ularly the Secretary of Defense, play important parts. But the President must rely mainly upon the 

 Secretary of State for the initial synthesis of the political, military, economic, and other elements 

 which go into the making of a coherent national strategy. He must also be mainly responsible for 

 bringing to the President proposals for major new departures in national poUcy. 



And in a second staff study, U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Government Operations, Super-Cabinet 

 Officers and Superstaffs, 86th Cong., 2nd sess., November 16, 1960, p. 9: 



If the President is to ask more, and to get more, from the Secretary of State, the Secretary must be 

 better staffed to offer policy guidance and initiatives across the whole span of national security 

 problems. This does not mean a larger Department of State; it may well mean a smaller one. But it 

 does mean a Department competently staffed with generaUsts, economists, and military and sci- 

 entific experts to support the Secretary in understanding and following aU fields falling within his 

 broad concern. 



Again, in a third staff study, U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Government Operations, The Secretary 

 of State and the N'ational Security Policy Process, 87th Cong., 1st sess., January 28, 1961, p. 8: 



State does not require large staffs of "house technicians" in every narrow specialty bearing upon 

 foreign policy. But the Secretary does need, in his own family, more first rate experts in economics, 

 science and technology, intelligence, and military matters who can interpret their specialities in 

 terms of his needs. . . . 



State's need for broadened staff competence is perhaps most acute in the area of military and 

 scientific-technical problems. . . . 



If competently manned to lake into account the entire range of the problems of our foreign rela- 

 tions, the Planning Staff can give the Secretary continuing counsel on basic strategic policy not likely 

 to be provided by other parts of the depaitment. 



