Remember about a month ago, when President-elect Obama announced his foreign policy team, and it looked as if there was going to be a shift in 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 Dept. 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 Dept. 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 Dept. 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 address 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.
Crossposted to The Streak.
Login Here




16 Comments
Spotlight


Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About ATTACKERMAN
Advanced search
RSS/XML Feed
Thanks for all your reporting, Spencer. Things are looking up.
Ultimately the State Department Blackwater contracts have got to be terminated. Especially in light of their giving money to the WJ Clinton Library. It would be a serious conflict of interest.
In my field (envirnomental engineering), the term “blackwater” refers to toilet flushings.
Does that mean that the cheenee/bushie agenda was not high on foreign policy other than making “war”?
Digg please
does this mean that the militarization of American Empire and, by proxy, the world will be impacted? maybe a shift toward civility instead of war and mass murder?
just wonderin……….
will the Pentagon actually allow this kind of thing?
really?
Hey Pun, your shift is showing!
Spence, I totally take back all the crap I flung about your ties. Great reporting going on here! Lookin’ good.
OT:
(no Libby…yet)
shift happens.
“The Pentagon would like to turn functionality over to civilian resources, but the resources are not there,”
So they say. Bureaucrats rarely give up budget or control.
And they are there: USAID, Peace Corps, and ask for volunteers, they just have not tried a peaceful approach.
so, the thugs want to leave nation building to the dems? this is what we always do…clean up after em. i am not impressed unless someone goes ta jail.
Why? Maybe the idea should be not to insert the State Department in shooting wars but to get the Department of Defense out of them. And is this whole “expeditionary” thing really what we want? It sounds nice to re-invigorate State but wouldn’t it do the country more good if Clinton delivered us say an Israeli-Palestinian peace? or diplomatic cover for our departure from Iraq? or an improved international image through a commitment to international law?
Excellent point, although the next logical question would be “What should replace them?” That’s one of the problems with expeditionary forces – they’re generally armed for good reason. I can understand being reluctant to serve in a place where well-armed people are afraid to be out in groups of fewer than ten. I know I would be.
They could bring along Marines, of course, but then that requires cooperation from another department, and permission of the host country. It also requires that you have enough Marines, which strikes me as a potential problem.
They need their own security service. In Canada this is not such a problem, because Foreign Affairs (our State) is senior to DoD and Defense understands that when the Diplos need backup, they’re to get backup. In the US that won’t work. Get rid of the mercenaries, get your own internal security force. Sure, a lot of the time they’ll sit on their butts, but so what.
As for diplomats themselves, hardship pay plus going back to the foreign service exam should give them a culture that celebrates being willing to take risks.
sounds to me like they are going with a different plan – the one where the budget is increased in order to be able to hire enough of the blackwater types.
“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.”
So are we to assume that the additional resources needed by the State Department will come out of the Pentagon’s budget (since the Pentagon will no longer be responsible for this “functionality”)? I’ll believe it when I see it!