NSC vs. State: Efficiency in Foreign Policy Production
             The National Security Council, housed in the Executive Office of the President, is one of the most efficient bureaucratic organizations in our government. The U.S. Department of State, located less specifically but more ominously in the Executive branch, is one of the least. Is the way the State Department works inherently affecting its ability to produce salient foreign policy? Does the fact that the NSC works differently then the State Department really give it an advantage when producing foreign policy? What these organizations are and how they work are the most basic of questions that must be answered in order to understand how their policies differ, and why they differ, and in turn to adequately asses which one is more able to produce working foreign policy.
             The Department of State, or Foggy Bottom, almost lovingly named for its location in Washington D.C., is the vast bureaucracy classically responsible for the creation and maintenance of foreign affairs. It is headed by the Secretary of State, and is housed in the Executive branch, much like the Department of Defense. Just like the D.O.D or any other bureaucracy, it is characterized by hierarchy, specialization, and routinization (Rosati 140), but in this case, to a much greater extent. Foreign policies are created within the department and exported through ambassadors and Foreign Service officers in other countries. Its workings are complex and intricate; everyone has a job, and everyone intends to do whatever it takes to keep it. After the Secretary of State, there is the Deputy Secretary of State, then six undersecretaries, each the master of his own area. The most specialized work takes place at the bureau level. The bureaus are responsible for work in the areas of African affairs, East Asian and Pacific affairs, European and Eurasian affairs, Near eastern affairs, south Asian affairs, and Western Hemisphe...