Small Wars Journal

The Frontline Country Team

Tue, 06/17/2008 - 9:25pm
Christopher Griffin and Thomas Donnelly have a new study posted at the American Enterprise Institute on a very topical and very contentious issue - building the capabilities of our allies and security partners. In The Frontline Country Team: A Model for Engagement the authors provide a critique of the development and current practice of American security cooperation programs and a proposal for how they may be improved.

From the AEI synopsis:

For over sixty years, the United States has sought to build the capabilities of its allies and security partners. This is a mission that has accelerated since the terrorist attacks of September 2001, and it is one that any administration, be it Democratic or Republican, will inherit in January 2009. As a longstanding strategic goal, building partnership capacity has also dredged up a series of contradictions and conundrums for American policymaking, as officials attempt to foster governance without fueling dictatorships, engage "frontline states" without becoming enmeshed in their internal feuds, and manage the details of convoluted international partnerships from the confines of Washington. Resolving these contradictions--or at least mitigating them--is the principal ongoing challenge of American security cooperation programs.

In this report, we provide a critique of the development and current practice of American security cooperation programs, as well as a modest proposal for how they may be improved in the future. We find that many of the authorities and instruments for engagement already exist, but that they may be more effectively harnessed if leadership is devolved from Washington to the "frontline country team," in which the ambassador is responsible for coordinating and directing American policy. We argue that the country team is the point at which the rubber of American policy hits the road and where it will ultimately succeed or fail.

The Frontline Country Team: A Model for Engagement

Comments

Tom,

I agree leadership is key. And on your second point I think that is why it is all the more important to have a strong and capable country team because only such a country team can prevent the 5000 mile screwdriver from wreaking havoc. Dave

Tom Odom

Wed, 06/18/2008 - 11:29am

As a Defense Attache in 2 countries (as well as service around 4 other diplomatic missions), I served on a dismal country team in Zaire and a superb country team in Rwanda. The difference was simple: leadership from the Ambassador (or Charge).

Unfortunately the information age works against the idea of using the country team the way it should be used. Instantaneous multiple means of communication from DC to any point on the globe furthers the stupid assumtion that "hearing what is happening" is the same as "seeing what is happening" on the ground. Put another way, the general as the squad leader in the sky over Vietnam is very much alive when it comes to DC trying to direct events in countries around the globe.

Tom

Excellent report. I truly believe that effective country teams are the way ahead. I think the country teams are more important (and more effective) than any USG regional organizations. I only wish they had really looked at the US Country Team in the Philippines. It is the model for USG interagency efforts. There is real synergy among the Ambassador, USAID, Pol-Mil, LEGAT, Treasury, RA, etc. and the US military presence in country. Probably the best I have ever seen. It shuld be studied and emulated. Dave