Comments on: Shift

By: DICKERSON3870

DICKERSON3870 — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 02:27:00 +0000

“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!

By: selise

selise — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 22:46:30 +0000

Get rid of the mercenaries, get your own internal security force.

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.

By: Ian Welsh

Ian Welsh — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 22:13:37 +0000

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.

By: Cujo359

Cujo359 — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 21:29:55 +0000

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.

By: Hugh

Hugh — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 21:12:00 +0000

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.

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?

By: californiarealitycheck

californiarealitycheck — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 21:10:04 +0000

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.

By: Synoia

Synoia — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 21:05:38 +0000

“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.

By: punaise

punaise — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 21:00:29 +0000

shift happens.

By: punaise

punaise — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 21:00:09 +0000

OT:

Bush pardons 19

Someone break the bad news to the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board: The Department of Justice has just announced the latest round of pardons issued by President Bush, and no big names made the list.

(no Libby…yet)

By: dosido

dosido — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 20:52:59 +0000

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.