rssThe Coming Military-Civilian Resource Shift, Cont’d
Tuesday, December 23, 2008 at 8:22 am
- 5 Comments
Remember about a month ago, when President-elect Barack Obama announced his foreign policy team, and it looked as if there was going to be a shift of emphasis from the military to the civilian agencies of government, in terms of money, attention and influence? Secretary of State-designee Hillary Rodham Clinton is looking to reorganize her (intended) department to ensure it happens.
The New York Times’ Mark Landler and Helene Cooper have a great story — great in terms of being so comprehensive that it makes commentary difficult, because most points worth making are actually in the story — reporting that Clinton is going with two deputy secretaries: Jim Steinberg, as Greg Sargent has tirelessly reported, for traditional deputy tasks like diplomacy, policy and management; and former Clinton administration budget chief Jacob Lew, who will push the bureaucracy to get money for the department.
This is something Bob Gates has been behind all through his Pentagon tenure as it is. Back in February 2007, right as Gates was coming into office, he expressed alarm that the State Department wasn’t shouldering enough of the burden in Iraq. He turned that burden-sharing concern into a fundamental theme of his secretaryship, and according to the Times, he’s naturally on board with Clinton’s move, as is incoming national security adviser Jim Jones.
“The Pentagon would like to turn functionality over to civilian resources, but the resources are not there,” the [transition] official said. “We’re looking to have a State Department that has what it needs.”
There is a question here of capacity, though. It’s one thing to give the State Department a bigger budget. But it’s quite another to give it a bigger budget and instruct it to take charge of certain things the military does, like, say, outreach to tribal groups far from embassies and consulates in the middle of shooting wars. The State Department still doesn’t have an expeditionary culture, largely because it hasn’t really had to have one for awhile. A question that Clinton should have to answer at her confirmation hearing is how she intends to address that. Will pay incentives change? Will foreign-service-officer training change?
If not, the natural instinct — at least in rubber-hits-the-road places like Iraq and Afghanistan — is for the military to remain in a dominant role, since it’s the far more capable organization.
Follow Spencer Ackerman on Twitter
5 Comments
Comment posted December 30, 2008 @ 11:31 am
Actually, State has built up the skeletal outlines of exactly the sort of expeditionary force you describe. The problem is that the funding never happened; it went to DOD instead. Historically, moreover, it's USAID that has taken the lead on expeditionary forces. Therein lies the core talent. In any case, your conclusion is a self-fulfilling prophecy, thanks to deliberate policy choices to make the military all things to all people.
Comment posted December 31, 2008 @ 1:30 am
What do you mean, the State Dept doesn't have an expeditionary culture? We live in hell holes like Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, Ciudad Juarez, Mexico and Hyderabad, India, (my three assignments so far)– places most Americans would never even visit, much less drag their children to. We take whatever assignments we're given; we don't get to pick and choose according to how cushy the spot is. People have strong misconceptions about what Foreign Service Officers and Specialists do and how much money they make. We're not a bunch of aristocrats from the Ivy Leagues who stand around sipping wine at cocktail parties. That is a completely outdated view of the FS.
Just wanted to set the record straight.
Comment posted December 31, 2008 @ 5:14 am
I believe that what they are trying to say is that DOS has a lack of organic logistical capability. The US Mil can move itself from point A to point B in areas with few roads, feed, house, medicate, and communicate along the way…all while providing its own security. DOS on the other hand generally lacks the in house capability to do those basic functions that are required in an environment like the ones the US Mil is currently operating in.
I don't believe that anyone is questioning the willingness of DOS people to go…but the capability to put them far from support and keep them alive, healthy, and functional is just not 100% there. I am not sure how that could be fixed…the basic ratio of support personnel to actual direct action personnel is always around 7 to 1 and DOS doesn't have the infrastructure to even train and create things like helicopter pilots, maintenance crews, medics, mechanics, ect. DOS relies heavily on local infrastructure for support…and that is its handicap. In the parts of the world they are talking about, the lack of local support is the problem. You have to be capable of doing it in house.
It would require a massive cultural shift and huge $$$. I hope it works out…but I'm not going to hold my breath. Building that type of capability would usually take decades. The training pipeline alone would take years for some jobs.
Comment posted January 1, 2009 @ 12:37 am
Well put, but the obvious answer here is to wed the capabilities of the military with the mission of DoS. Several military offices are already deeply embedded at almost all of our embassies. Have them put their resources at the disposal of DoS, just like MSGs have been doing for decades.
It would also resolve questions regarding use of private contractors such as Blackwater. In Baghdad, Blackwater has a small airforce employed by DS for motorcade support, BIAP runs, etc. The US already has quite an airforce, and Army Blackhawks share the same LZ as Blackwater. Time to cooperate.
Comment posted January 1, 2009 @ 8:37 am
Well put, but the obvious answer here is to wed the capabilities of the military with the mission of DoS. Several military offices are already deeply embedded at almost all of our embassies. Have them put their resources at the disposal of DoS, just like MSGs have been doing for decades.
It would also resolve questions regarding use of private contractors such as Blackwater. In Baghdad, Blackwater has a small airforce employed by DS for motorcade support, BIAP runs, etc. The US already has quite an airforce, and Army Blackhawks share the same LZ as Blackwater. Time to cooperate.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
