(9 of 9)
Haig, appearing before reporters and cheering subordinates in the State Department auditorium, simply read aloud his letter of resignation, which he had finally delivered, three hours after it had been accepted. He said about his successor Shultz: "My own knowledge of George and his experience, professionalism and integrity gives me the utmost confidence." Reagan and Haig both opened by announcing that they would answer no questions, and both left the podium quickly, ignoring shouts of "Why?" Reagan went by helicopter to Camp David shortly after his appearance. Later, a top White House aide was asked how Reagan felt about it all. The answer: "Just like he did after the New Hampshire primary," referring to the point in his campaign at which the Republican candidate fired his top political strategist just as Reagan was beginning to show that he might win the election.
There was almost a palpable sense of relief at the White House over the prospect of Haig's departure and Shultz's arrival. Some aides actually celebrated on Friday evening. Whether the new Secretary of State will actually direct a fundamental shift in foreign policy remains to be seen. Institutional restraints and Shultz's own need to familiarize himself with both his assignment and new colleagues will probably prevent him from having a noticeable impact in the weeks ahead, even if he comes to Foggy Bottom with a mandate from Reagan and a clear set of objectives of his own.
In any case, the problem of achieving a consistent foreign policy is not only one of personalities, nor even of contrasting views on specific problems, but also of structure. In domestic policy, for good or ill, Reagan has a strongly held set of beliefs that he has at times imposed even over the unanimous opposition of his advisers. In foreign affairs the President has little experience and at times seems to lack the intense interest he displays in domestic concerns. He has preferred to govern in the foreign sphere by consensus, letting advisers argue out their views in front of him and deciding now in favor of one, now for another.
In practice this has been a formula for continuing and unresolved conflict, especially between the contrasting State Department and Pentagon views of the world. It is also a formula for an endless series of discrete decisions that are poorly related to each other.
No doubt, Haig's mercurial personality worsened conflicts. But Myer Rashish, who was forced to resign last January as Under Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, says of the storms of the Haig era: "Neither Haig nor the White House was right in any of this. The problem is the system for making policy. It is neither designed for, nor capable of, making coherent policy on any major issue. Policy is all made ad hoc." It will take more than a change of the name of the Secretary of State from Haig to Shultz to overcome that difficulty.
—By George J. Church. Reported by Robert Ajemian and Douglas Brew/ Washington