Gates Highlights Role of Diplomacy, Development in U.S. Foreign Policy - John Kruzel, AFPS
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates yesterday said diplomacy and development should lead American efforts abroad, and he warned against a "creeping militarization" of U.S. foreign policy.
"Broadly speaking, when it comes to America's engagement with the rest of the world, it is important that the military is -- and is clearly seen to be -- in a supporting role to civilian agencies," he said.
In a speech interrupted several times by rousing applause, Gates told the audience at a dinner organized by the U.S. Global Leadership Campaign that America cannot simply "kill or capture our way to victory" over the long term.
"What the Pentagon calls 'kinetic' operations should be subordinate to measures to promote participation in government, economic programs to spur development, and efforts to address the grievances that often lie at the heart of insurgencies and among the discontented from which terrorists recruit," he said.
In remarks imbued with a spirit of cooperation between the departments of Defense and State -- a relationship that in the past has been marked by contention, Gates said -- the defense secretary hailed his working relationship with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who had presented him the group's leadership award earlier in the evening...
As Delivered by Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, Washington, D.C. , Tuesday, July 15, 2008 (Full Text)
Excerpts:
War on Terror
Over the long term, we cannot kill or capture our way to victory. What the Pentagon calls "kinetic" operations should be subordinate to measures to promote participation in government, economic programs to spur development, and efforts to address the grievances that often lie at the heart of insurgencies and among the discontented from which terrorists recruit. It will take the patient accumulation of quiet successes over time to discredit and defeat extremist movements and their ideology.
Failing States
I believe the most persistent and potentially dangerous threats will come less from emerging ambitious states, than from failing ones that cannot meet the basic needs - much less the aspirations - of their people.
U.S. Reputation Abroad
In my travels to foreign capitals, I have been struck by the eagerness of so many foreign governments to forge closer diplomatic and security ties with the United States - ranging from old enemies like Vietnam to new partners like India. Nonetheless, regard for the U.S. remains low amongst the populations of many key nations - especially those of our moderate Muslim allies.
This is important because much of our national security strategy depends on securing the cooperation of other nations, which will depend heavily on the extent to which our efforts abroad are viewed as legitimate by their publics. The solution is not to be found in some slick PR campaign or by trying to out propagandize al-Qaeda, but through the steady accumulation of actions and results that build trust and credibility over time.
Plus-up Civilian Agencies
It has become clear that America's civilian institutions of diplomacy and development have been chronically undermanned and underfunded for far too long - relative to what we traditionally spend on the military, and more importantly, relative to the responsibilities and challenges our nation has around the world. Though I cannot pretend to know the right dollar amount - I do know it's a good deal more than the one percent of the federal budget that it is right now. Because the numbers we are talking about are relatively small compared to the rest of government, a steep increase in these capabilities is well within reach - as long as there is the political will and wisdom to do it.
Afghanistan Challenge
The vastly larger, more complex international effort in Afghanistan presents a different set of challenges. There are dozens of nations, hundreds of NGOs, universities, development banks, the United Nations, NATO, the EU - all working to help a nation beset by crushing poverty, a bumper opium crop, and a ruthless and resilient insurgency. Getting all these different elements to coordinate operations and share best practices has been a colossal - and so far an all too often unsuccessful - undertaking.
Shift to Building Capacity
Repeating an Afghanistan or Iraq - forced regime change followed by nation-building under fire - may be unlikely in the future. What is likely though, even a certainty, is the need to work with and through local governments to avoid the next insurgency, to rescue the next failing state, or to head off the next humanitarian disaster.
Militarization in Foreign Policy?
Overall, even outside Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. military has become more involved in a range of activities that in the past were perceived to be the exclusive province of civilian agencies and organizations. This has led to concern among many organizations - including probably many represented here tonight - about what's seen as a creeping "militarization" of some aspects of America's foreign policy.
This is not an entirely unreasonable sentiment. As a career CIA officer I watched with some dismay the increasing dominance of the defense 800 pound gorilla in the intelligence arena over years. But that scenario can be avoided if - as is the case with the intelligence community today - there is the right leadership, adequate funding of civilian agencies, effective coordination on the ground, and a clear understanding of the authorities, roles, and missions of military versus civilian efforts, and how they fit, or in some cases don't fit, together...
Civilian vs. Military Roles
Broadly speaking, when it comes to America's engagement with the rest of the world, it is important that the military is - and is clearly seen to be - in a supporting role to civilian agencies. Our diplomatic leaders - be they in ambassadors' suites or on the State Department's seventh floor - must have the resources and political support needed to fully exercise their statutory responsibilities in leading American foreign policy.
The challenge facing our institutions is to adapt to new realities while preserving those core competencies and institutional traits that have made them so successful in the past. The Foreign Service is not the Foreign Legion, and the U.S. military should never be mistaken for a Peace Corps with guns.
U.S. Leadership
In closing, I am convinced, irrespective of what is reported in global opinion surveys, or recounted in the latest speculation about American decline, that around the world, men and women seeking freedom from despotism, want, and fear will continue to look to the United States for leadership.
As a nation, we have, over more than two centuries, made our share of mistakes. From time to time, we have strayed from our values; and, on occasion, we have become arrogant in our dealings with others. But we have always corrected our course. And that is why today, as throughout our history, this country remains the world's most powerful force for good - the ultimate protector of what Vaclav Havel once called "civilization's thin veneer." A nation Abraham Lincoln described as mankind's "last, best hope." For any given cause or crisis, if America does not lead, then more often than not, what needs to get done simply won't get done.