He will not be surprised to find that general principles produce conflicting results in the factual situation with which he is confronted. He must think about which of these principles must take precedence. He will know that general policy papers written months before may not fit his problem because of crucial changes in circumstance. He is aware that every moderately important problem merges imperceptibly into every other problem. He must deal with the question of how to manage a part when it cannot be handled without relation to the whole -- when the whole is too large to grasp.

He must think of others who have a stake in the question and in its answer. Who should be consulted among his colleagues in the Department or other departments and agencies of the Government? Which American ambassadors could provide helpful advice? Are private interests sufficiently involved to be consulted? What is the probable attitude of other governments, including those less directly involved? How and at what stage and in what sequence are other governments to be consulted?

If action is indicated, what kind of action is relevant to the problem? The selection of the wrong tools can mean waste, at best, and at worst an unwanted inflammation of the problem itself. Can the President or the Secretary act under existing authority, or will new legislation and new money be required? Should the action be unilateral or multilateral? Is the matter one for the United Nations or some other international body? For, if so, the path leads through a complex process of parliamentary diplomacy which adds still another dimension to the problem.