Gordon Adams, the Don Corleone of State/DOD Budgets, weighed in earlier this week on the QDDR. In arguing that State and USAID should possess a clear civilian mission that is separate from merely supporting DOD’s stabilization missions, Adams writes:

There are also serious near-term downsides to a mission that ties the civilian capability to the Defense mission. First, because the focus is on short-term results, we could become intertwined in the internal affairs of countries where stability is an issue, but the conditions for success are minimal. I’m thinking here of Somalia. Second, even with a civilian attachment, U.S. engagement presents a military face. Therefore, “host” countries such as Yemen wonder whether Washington is truly investing in its long-term needs or simply intervening to protect U.S. interests. Finally, after decades of teaching foreign militaries that their proper role is to stay in their barracks and to eschew any involvement in politics and business, we now seem to be saying that the military is the most effective institution for governance and economic growth.

That third point certainly lingers, doesn’t it? Given the 2010 QDR’s commitment to “Strengthen and institutionalize general purpose force capabilities for security force assistance,” the apparent contradiction highlighted by Adams is worth keeping in mind as the U.S. military expands its ability to train and equip foreign militaries.

So what is the appropriate civilian mission for State and USAID? Adams suggests:

I envision one element of such a scenario working like so: Governance would be the centerpiece of State/USAID. As such, there would be a major investment in State and USAID so that they could provide assistance for the rule of law, the reduction of corruption, administrative and political processes, and civil society. A much smaller U.S. civilian capability would exist to work alongside deployed U.S. military forces, but the goal would be to make such deployments unnecessary. (And Iraq and Afghanistan aren’t the prototypes; both were U.S.-led invasions with regime change in mind.) For instance, such a mission focus could lead to sending civilians into many African countries with stronger governance in mind, and a small number of military personnel for security force training, under State policy guidance.

[snip]

The bottom line is that any “whole of government” effort at interagency cooperation needs to be based on the reality that the missions of the civilian agencies are not the same as the missions of the military. With that in mind, what we really need is a healthy debate about strategy and mission, with a civilian set of missions clearly defined. It’s a mission that State and USAID need to shape before they can bring the case to the interagency discussion.

Word.

Read more

Security Matters, QDR (all tags)

Defense geeks are abuzz: A draft version of the Pentagon's 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) was obtained yesterday by Defense News.  The Pentagon’s major planning document, spearheaded by Undersecretary of Defense Michele Flournoy, will shape U.S. defense posture around the globe for the next several years and likely influence the fiscal year (FY) 2011 budget.  

The document “Acknowledges and puts top priority on succeeding in today’s conflicts,” but also places a major emphasis on the balance between “near and longer-term risks.”  It states that the FY 2011 budget will build on FY 2010, placing additional attention on “key lines of investment.”  These include, “our troops and our people” and “how we buy and operate.”

Gone is the focus on fighting two peer militaries simultaneously, which has existed as a pervasive part of the QDR since the 1990s.  The Pentagon will scrap that concept, “in order to prepare the services for a wider and more complex array of security challenges,” notes Jason Sherman.

Spencer Ackerman points out that this new focus is better because it is centered on existing capabilities: “Not on people. Not on states. Not on specific enemies. But on capabilities that hostile actors have demonstrated to use against the United States and its allies.”

Read more

Security Matters, Defense Spending, FY 2011, QDR (all tags)