Professor Elliot Cohen: The Exit Interview
By Ethan Arnheim

It was announced early last month that Professor Elliot Cohen would take leave from his position as Director of the Strategic Studies Program to work as Counselor to the State Department. He takes a break from SAIS after more than 15 years of teaching to fill a position that has been empty since Philip Zelikow departed earlier this year. In this conversation with SAIS first-year Ethan Arnheim, Cohen reflects on his time at SAIS and the development of the University. He describes what he hopes to accomplish in his new job and gives an insider’s perspective on working closely with the Secretary of State and changes within government.

Now that students can’t take classes with you, what courses would you recommend, and with which professor?

Well, I think the Strategic Studies courses are as good as they’ve always been. Dr. Keaney is going to be teaching strategy and policy, and actually he’s been doing that in summers all along - so that will remain a great course and students should stick with it. If Profesor Grygiel is around, there should be another round of Thucydides and Machiavelli, and he’s also a great teacher. For the rest of the courses, War and the Modern World is going into the cooler, but I’ll bring it out when I return.

Do you plan to return to SAIS?

Yes, absolutely.

When you do return to SAIS, what will you have gained when you start teaching again?

Well, obviously, I won’t know until I come back. I really am convinced it will make me a much better teacher. No matter how close you watch things from the outside - I’ve been fortunate enough to have been in Washington for 17 years - I’ve had kind of part time looks at it, different commissions, and I’ve had friends in government, but there’s nothing quite like really being inside while policy is being made. That sense of reality will be very valuable. I also suspect that it will make me better in dealing those kinds of assignments, or I’d almost say training...things I’ve already worked on with students before. How do you write a memo that actually gets somebody’s attention? How do you make your point in the 10 minutes it takes to walk down a hall? Practical wisdom about how to function in Washington. But its also important to remember those things that you don’t necessarily learn in government. The essential wisdom that’s in the Peloponnesian War, Clausewitz - that won’t change from having been inside government. It’s important to keep government service in perspective. So, I am sure there will be some things that I’ll take away alot, and there are some things that won’t be affected one way or the other.

You’ve been at SAIS for more than 15 years. How has it changed in that time, and what direction do you see the school taking?

Well, I think the school is as good as it was when I came to it or much better today. We’ve gone through a major demographic change. There are a lot of new faculty members. I think we’ve made a wonderful set of hires. As I think about the tenured faculty that we’ve brought on during my tenure, each one seems to me to have added strength to the institution. If anything, it’s a more collegial place. I think from an administrative point of view, its much more efficient. The students were always good. I think that the students today are the best ever. That’s not just happy talk. There’s always something of a bell shaped curve, but the students I’m seeing today are the best I’ve ever seen. I think the school is doing phenomenally well. I think I wish we were rolling in dough, but other than that, I think we’re really in wonderful shape.

That’s great to hear. I hope that trend continues.

I do too. One thing that has really struck me, even in the travel I’ve already I done for the State Department...Everywhere I go there are SAIS students. In the State Department, in the intelligence community, in the military. There’s just something really wonderful about encountering them and seeing their enthusiasm. Not only for what they’re doing, but for the school, and their appreciation of it.

About your job. There’s been a lot written about your new post - what is something people don’t understand about the position?

I think people don’t understand what, in a way, an idiosyncratic job it is. It’s actually quite old. The position of counselor has existed over a century. It has had some very distinguished names associated with it, but some Secretaries of State have chosen not to have Counselors. For example, Secretary Powell did not have a Counselor. The title is Counselor to the Department of State, not to the Secretary. I’m not quite sure why that’s the case. George Kennan was running the policy planning staff when he was Counselor. That’s now separate - there’s the Director of Policy Planning. In the past, Counselors took some responsibilities that are now assigned to the Undersecretary of Political Affairs. It’s a position that has shifted around alot in the past. I think the key to understanding it is that you’re really there to support the Secretary and the other senior people. You have no statutory or set of responsibilities in the same way that, say, the regional bureaus do. If you’re running EUR [Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs], your job is running relations with Europe. You can define the job differently or define the job for you differently. I think probably the most important thing is that you be seen as someone who can first tackle issues that go across some of the regional bureaus. But, more importantly, that you are somebody dispassionate and will articulate a view and will be discreet about it. That’s one of the reasons why I’m intending to submerge for the next year, year and a half. Its not an effective position, as far as I can tell, if you are a very public figure. So I don’t intend to be a public figure.

To delve further, what would be a typical assignment that as Counselor to the Department of State you might receive? Or do you make your own agenda?

I’m not going into what the Secretary has already asked me to do, and she has already asked me to do some things. I guess what I can say because she’s made it public is that she would like me to be working at the places where the Defense Department and the State Department interact and come together. There’s a whole set of issues there. I’ll presumably be involved in those. It could be any kind of things - convening working groups on something, drafting a policy paper, it could be going on a trip somewhere and taking a look at things. It really varies a lot. But part of it also is just fitting into the general policy process. You know, that’s of course a major sort of responsibility.

The interaction between government agencies is changing. State is now cooperating more with Defense, and USAID is becoming increasingly attached to DOS? What further changes do you think are likely? What do you think the overall direction is?

That’s an interesting thing. People sometimes talk about the idea of doing a Goldwater-Nichols for the interagency world. Goldwater-Nichols of course being the major reorganization of the Defense Department in 1986. I don’t know about that. It certainly strikes me that since 2001 in the national security field, a lot of the bureaucratic boundaries that used to exist have been substantially reduced. That really has struck me quite forcefully, just in terms of willingness to share information and so on. I suspect that in the future what we may see more of is individuals going back and forth between different agencies and a more routinized interagency cooperation at a pretty low level. You’re already seeing that to some extent in things like the Provincial Reconstruction Teams in Afghanistan and Iraq. I suspect we’re likely to see more of that in the future. There have already been very substantial changes. The Pentagon was always a place on the go when I was there. If you remember after the Cuban Missile Crisis, the State Department stands up an operations center that is continually manned and has pretty high speed communications. One of the first things I did when I came on board was to take a look at that and it’s quite an impressive operation. I think you’ll to see a lot more of that. I don’t know if formal reform is in the works. I’m not smart enough to know that. I think you are going to see more and more systematic interagency cooperation and a lot of personnel moving back and forth.

More broadly about your job. How would you define success in this post? How will you know at the end of your term if you’ve done well, if you’ve accomplished what you set out to?

As a general proposition, I strongly believe that there are no policy successes which can be attributable to a single individual. I also believe, at least in cases that I’m aware of, some of the greatest successes is where the hero is unsung, and preferred it that way. I don’t expect and I don’t want my name attached to any particular policy move....I would feel that I will have succeeded if I have given any problems that come my way the most thorough thinking through I can do and have delivered my opinions in a timely and completely candid way to my boss. If I do that I will have done my bit. She’s ultimately the principal, and the President is ultimately the boss. I’m not a decision maker. I’m a counselor, I’m an adviser. For me, that’s going to be the measure of success - do I give advice that fits with the time and in retrospect is sound and timely. There’s no point in giving advice too late. You’ve got to give it when it’s required. What they do with it, that is really their responsibility.

Some observers have read your earlier articles - in particular your November 2001 Wall Street Journal op-ed - as very hawkish. I know that’s label that you do not shy away from. In that article, you described the War on Terror as World War IV, and suggested that Iraq and Afghanistan were merely each a front. Another front, you suggested, is Iran . . .
 
I’m not going to talk about policy. As I said to the journalists who have interviewed me, I said you’re going to have a great time pulling up everything I’ve written and parsing it and trying to figure out what exactly it is I’ll be saying to the Secretary. But on substantive policy issues I’m not going to saying anything to anybody except the people I’m dealing with professionally.

So if I ask will you be involved with Iraq policy? What new directions do you suggest?

I’m really not going to talk about that.

Well, I can cut out a lot of questions then . . . If there is one aspect of the administration you could change, what would it be?

Again, that’s something I’d have to reserve for my boss.

This doesn’t have that much to do with policy, really. You’ve earlier suggested that the administration was not showing enough candor as would be appropriate. Do you still feel like that’s the case?

I’m not going to comment . . . One of the toughest parts of the transition is going from being a professor who can say whatever he pleases about anything he pleases to being a member of the administration . . . That calls for a discreet silence . . . What I will say is that I am very struck by how many good people there are in government. How many good people there are trying to do their best for the country, under what are frequently difficult conditions. That goes for people in Washington, and, of course, even more so people in the field. Part of my responsibility is to match that level of dedication.

One thing I find curious is what its like to work with for the Secretary of State. Don’t worry, this isn’t a policy question. What is it like working for Secretary Rice? I guess you’re on a first-name basis now?

I refer to her as Madame Secretary. That’s the appropriate title, so that’s what I call her by. She’s actually, I think, rather easy to work for. She’s very open. Her training is in academe, as you know, so she’s somebody quite comfortable with hearing divergent views. She’s somebody who is a very good listener. The truth is I think I’m really going to enjoy working for her. I have a lot of respect for her. So far I’ve really enjoyed it a lot.

Do you sense that the mood in those office has changed - I know you’ve been talking to her for some time - has it changed as popularity has declined and support for the administration has changed?

Obviously, people are aware of what’s going on outside. How could they not be? But they’re so consumed with all kinds of challenges going on right now that people don’t have all that much time to fret about those sorts of things. So people...they’re aware, certainly, they’d have to be foolish not to be. But that’s not what people are thinking about most. They’re mainly thinking about what is the next set of meetings and what decisions have to go up the chain, and all sorts of things of that kind. But they’re not spending a whole lot of time thinking about external pressures. They’re aware of them...but not consumed by them, not by a long shot.

So the suggestion that Karl Rove is hanging over at Foggy Bottom examining how it will play with their constituency is pretty much a myth?

I have yet to detect that. But I haven’t really been on the job. People are trying to do their best for the country. That really is what strikes me. One thing one realizes is just how much stuff is going on at any given time. The State Department has an extremely wide remit. That’s one of the things that is quite impressive. Whether it’s some conflict in Africa, trade negotiation, human rights issues somewhere, all this stuff ends up somehow on the desk of the State Department. They really have alot of stuff on their plate.

Thanks for your time . . . I hope we can do this again when you come back to SAIS and give some talks about your time in government

I’ve got a feeling that while I'm away I may be invite to give a talk at Mr. McLaughlin’s Defense of the Dark Arts seminar about what I’ve learned about process, which is really quite fascinating.