Comments on: The Coming Military-Civilian Resource Shift, Cont’d

By: DoS in Baghdad

DoS in Baghdad — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 13:37:20 +0000

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.

By: DoS in Baghdad

DoS in Baghdad — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 05:37:20 +0000

By: Timmaye

Timmaye — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 10:14:11 +0000

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.

By: ChuckT

ChuckT — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 06:30:20 +0000

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.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 16:31:53 +0000

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.