The Role of Department of Defense in Foreign Economic Development
by Thomas J. Lapato
Download the Summary Article (24pp double spaced) or the Complete Article (96+ pp).
Tom Lapato's paper was the blue ribbon paper from the Industrial College of the Armed Forces Class of 2009 and is republished here with his kind permission. It offers motivation for students on athletic scholarships everywhere and provides insights into operationalizing the E in DIME, an essential element of engagement and national power.
-----------
The battles of the 21st century will be fought in global markets and in corporate boardrooms as much as in more traditional combat venues. The Cold War ended with a whimper as the Soviet Union went bankrupt competing with American defense spending while ignoring the economic needs of its people. Terrorist organizations seek out failing states to establish their headquarters and networks using the economic disadvantages of the populations to recruit enemies against American ideals. It is no surprise that the main target of al-Qaeda's attacks on America was the financial center of the world. Even our most powerful near-peer rival, China, has softened its military stance while intending to subvert US power through economic means. Russia also appears —to flex its economic muscle through its outflows of energy to achieve greater advantage over its European neighbors and US allies. The current global economic crisis threatens stability and security throughout the world. The Department of Defense (DOD) must develop a class of economic warriors that will be able to lead the country in these non-conventional battles.
It is an optimal time to address the DOD's role in foreign economic development. Secretary Robert Gates has been vocal about the need for the defense establishment to continue to transform to avoid mistakes from the recent past. Instead of funding expensive, technology driven programs that take years to develop and are aimed at a direct involvement against another industrialized state, Gates has repeatedly called for "employing indirect approaches" where building the capacities of allies, partners, and of fragile states will be just as important as the kinetic approaches generally favored by the US military:
The requirement for the US military to maintain security, provide aid and comfort, begin reconstruction, and prop up local governments and public services will not go away [...] to achieve victory as Clausewitz defined it -- to attain a political objective -- the United States needs a military whose ability to kick down the door is matched by its ability to clean up the mess and even rebuild the house afterward.
-------------------
Tom Lapato was an Industry Fellow from KPMG LLP at the Industrial College of the Armed Forces (ICAF), National Defense University (NDU) during the 2009 academic year. His paper, "Business as Usual? The Role of the Department of Defense in Foreign Economic Development" was a product of his Business Transformation Agency (BTA)-sponsored Research Fellowship through the ICAF writing program. Mr. Lapato's paper earned the NDU President's Strategic Vision Award for the class of 2009. Mr. Lapato was guided throughout the research and writing process by his ICAF Research Advisor, Mr. Tom Hauser, along with his sponsor at the BTA, Mr. Bob Love.
Download the Summary Article (24pp double spaced) or the Complete Article (96+ pp).
Go ICAF. Beat NWC.
About the Author(s)
Comments
I like the paper. Inter agency and inter government operations would improve with the implementation of the recommended COAs. I agree with Barnett that the current system will fail.
Our nation does not have the political will to deal with the problems of our own mill towns and larger urban areas.
Corruption, violence, unemployable people, and much more needs to be addressed by us as a nation.
If we won't do it here I don't believe we will succeed overseas.
Kaplan's book "Empire Wilderness" is a good baseline.