State Failure
The AP reports that George J. Mitchell, the new special envoy to the Middle East, will travel to Israel Wednesday for talks on keeping alive a fragile Gaza cease-fire and reviving Mideast negotiations. It's a quick start on a problem that 43 intentionally ignored as insolvable, but there is a rare window in the Middle East: Palestinians as well as HAMAS and their backers have been reminded of the overwhelming power and skill of the IDF while Isreael's luck in the recent conflict not becoming another OPERATION JUST REWARD should sober its leaders for the time being; keeping the focus on the strategic (what constitutes victory, how can actors shape the future battlefield) versus the operational (the need to respond and show strength) justify an all out effort by any administration interested in good stewardship.


But why the special envoy? On Thursday, Obama, Biden, and Clinton gathered at the State Department to name George J. Mitchell special envoy for the Middle East and Richard C. Holbrooke special special representative for Afghanistan-Pakistan and (transcript). The difference in the title matters: as special envoy, Mitchell will be part of the State apparatus; as special representative Holbrooke will report directly to the President and will be able to speak for State, Defense, the NSC, etc. While the Obama predelection for "czars" has already been commented on, fellow Iraqniks remember how well special representatives have worked in the past. But then the Foreign Service system is clearly broken, not only in its lack of mission and poor personal (also), but in the problems it has in facing regional issues - ambassadors are limited by the countries they are assigned to while regional issues are left to the Assistant Secretaries of State, relatively new positions (15 years?) that run vast fiefdoms in Foggy Bottom and little else. There's a strong argument for keeping the Secretary of State from becoming the "top diplomat" or the country desk officer for the rotating list of top issues, but the current system offers little other choice. The problems are institutional, and legion.


If the use of "special envoys" constitutes an acknowledgement that the system is broken, then it could be a positive sign of an administration peopled by those who have worked on interagency reform issues and want to create the space to address policy issues. Having given up both the Middle East and South Asia on her first day of work, Clinton has her own window to achieve the impossible. Her warm reception by the Foreign Service Association, however, make it clear that professional bureaucrats see the new Secretary of State as a partisan defender, who will win funds and personnel from Congress and win prestigue from the Department of Defense in a weird zero-sum game that I hear frequently repeated. All this without making any changes or reforms. Will we eventually be seeing a special envoy for the reform of the Department of State?


But no matter what happens, Mitchel isn't taking up this challenge too soon. Wired News reports that the Gaza tunnels are already back open (pics), and with HAMAS in charge.


EDIT: Daniel Drezner observes: There are rumors aplenty of fierce battles within Foggy Bottom between the special envoys and undersecretaries for coveted offices on the seventh floor (where Clinton will be). As Daniel Markey points out, foreign policy for south Asia has been a “toxic mix of turf battles.” Holbrooke is simply another bureaucratic entrepreneur (one opposed by the Indians, by the way). The Obama administration is already having difficulties finding someone who would agree to serve as assistant secretary of state for south Asia. This is because, to put it gently, the transaction costs of dealing with Holbrooke can be high. Similarly, the relationship between Mitchell and Dennis Ross, who has been touted to be a “super-envoy” for the Middle East, remains unclear.There is one, final, sobering thought. The person who will be directing this great game of diplomatic egos will be Hillary Clinton.