Military Wants More Civilians to Help in Iraq

[SWJED]

7 February NY Times - Military Wants More Civilians to Help in Iraq (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/07/washington/07military.html?hp&ex=1170910800&en=1d3f6d16b7e72d5c&ei=5094&partner=homepage) by Thom Shanker and David Cloud.


Senior military officers, including members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have told President Bush and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates that the new Iraq strategy could fail unless more civilian agencies step forward quickly to carry out plans for reconstruction and political development.

The complaints reflect fresh tensions between the Pentagon and the State Department over personnel demands that have fallen most heavily on the military. But they also draw on a deeper reservoir of concerns among officers who have warned that a military buildup alone cannot solve Iraq’s problems, and who now fear that the military will bear a disproportionate burden if Mr. Bush’s strategy falls short.

Among particular complaints, the officers cited a request from the office of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that military personnel temporarily fill more than one-third of 350 new State Department jobs in Iraq that are to be created under the new strategy...

[sgmgrumpy]

State Department officials say they are using both incentives and subtler pressures to induce employees to go to Iraq.

But from the standpoint of personal security, taking those jobs — many of them, by definition, outside the relative safety of the Green Zone — is widely seen as an unattractive career option.


And people wonder why BW/TC/ are needed...;)

[bismark17]

It sounds familiar. I am currently reading the book, Slowburn, about a contract CIA experiences in setting up a HUMINT program in Vietnam and he discusses how the CIA had to fill the void there with contractors because very few of their permanent personnel wanted to go over there.

[sgmgrumpy]

I feel your pain.

Especially when you work with civilians who NEVER served in anything other than the local boy/girl scout troops. Sometimes I just want to pull their lips over their head and smack em.:rolleyes: :D Not sure if your a GS/GG or what, but I would tell you to always have a Plan-B in place and my HH-6 knows that. With those skill sets you should not have any problem finding a place anywhere conus/oconus:cool:

[Stan]

Evening Jed!
I think State will be writing you soon !

[selil]

...I'm ready to go back. I'm getting bored as hell here in AR. This has been the longest period of my life since I was 18 in which I have not stepped foot OCONUS for operational purposes.


I spent my entire tour of duty in the Marines CONUS (83-86). Trained like a fiend never even had harsh words with anybody. I was with my FTO as a police officer in my first month in Washington state and got shot at 3 times (an aberration to be sure but a great story still) ......

I wonder if they'd hired me for some wicked salary to cover my summer down time? I have three months in the summer I sit on my back porch and dodge "honey do's". There probably isn't much need though for an expert at computer networking/security/forensics though. Besides I really don't want to get divorced. Take Marct.... He'll do it. Besides he's Canadian and expendable. :)

[marct]

I wonder if they'd hired me for some wicked salary to cover my summer down time? I have three months in the summer I sit on my back porch and dodge "honey do's". There probably isn't much need though for an expert at computer networking/security/forensics though. Besides I really don't want to get divorced. Take Marct.... He'll do it. Besides he's Canadian and expendable. :)

I think the Canadian forces have an opening for you, Selil. If not them, the CRA (our tax man). You'd love Ottawa! It's actually up to -17C today (warm!)! As to working for State, being a true Canadian Nationalist, I'd have to ask for at least 150k, plus expenses (I'd guess another 300k) - hey, it ain't my department of foreign affairs :eek:!

Marc

[120mm]

I'm not being facetious when I say this, but we had a large number of reservists/guardsmen who got divorced/lost their jobs as a result of being mobilized, and one would think they would make ideal candidates for running the "civilian side" of the war in Iraq.

Unfortunately, the kinds of organizations they could possibly work for are primarily interested in folks who've just graduated college and can have their "mush-brains" formed in that organizations' image. There are also certain "hoops" these organizations set up to jump through in order to get hired that are completely unrealistic and are there primarily to deter people from applying.

Or maybe someone can tell me a good reason that a reservist SME in CA, Transportation or Intelligence with a Secret or better clearance needs to go through over a year's worth of vetting (accompanied by various stages of being unemployed) to be told NO, you aren't 23, 6'4" (or alternatively, you don't have breasts and a vagina) and have the right "school tie" to work for our organization, so we've let the position go empty.

I have a solution for the politicos: Start firing people. Start at the top, and don't stop until the correct people are in the jobs on the bottom, actually advancing US interests and not their own.

[Tom Odom]

Military Must Fill Iraq Civilian Jobs (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/07/AR2007020702315.html)

Rice, Pentagon at Odds Over Plan

By Karen DeYoung, Washington Post Staff Writer

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told Congress yesterday that more than 40 percent of nearly 300 State Department positions to be added in Iraq as part of President Bush's new strategy will have to be filled by military personnel.

"Frankly, the agencies of the U.S. government cannot fill that many posts" as quickly as necessary, Rice said at a hearing of the House Foreign Relations Committee yesterday morning. "And so our agreement with the Department of Defense was that for a period of time . . . we would actually use reservists to fill those positions."

The State Department has asked the Pentagon for 129 people to fill slots in "business development, agribusiness, medicine, city management" and other areas for 10 new provincial reconstruction teams (PRTs), according to David Satterfield, Rice's coordinator for Iraq, who spoke to reporters in an afternoon briefing.

Agree 120MM with the upheaval approach on getting this right.

But the upheaval needs to occur as a national imperative drawing on all segments of the national population, not just the active duty military or reservists, or even retirees, or those already in service of one form or another.

If we are a nation at war, we must be a collective we, not a selective, you.

That truly has to start at the top.

Tom

[tequila]

That's why I like this picture (http://bp2.blogger.com/_o4tKR2TUNWk/Rb_xq_aCv9I/AAAAAAAAAAM/MdiyxB7fEt4/s1600-h/070130_front1.jpg)from the Government Center in Ramadi. It speaks blunt truth (though expand it to include the other services and the British Army, of course).

[SWJED]

20 February NY Times - Pentagon to Fill Iraq Reconstruction Jobs Temporarily (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/20/world/middleeast/20military.html) by Thom Shanker.


The Pentagon and State Department have worked out a deal to send a small number of military personnel and Defense Department civilians to Iraq for several months until Foreign Service officers and State Department contract workers with specialized skills can fill those jobs, senior officials said Monday.

The internal administration discussions over filling the posts had exposed tensions between the military and civilian agencies over how to share responsibilities in carrying out President Bush’s new strategy for stabilizing and rebuilding Iraq — in particular, how to fill hazardous positions in new provincial reconstruction teams.

The State Department had asked the Pentagon to come up with military personnel or civilians to fill about one-third of the 350 new State Department jobs in Iraq. While the numbers involved are relatively small, the debate raised larger issues of whether the government was properly organized to carry out a long-term occupation of a country like Iraq.

The State Department’s written request for military personnel to fill some of the positions temporarily, received in late January, was met with frustration by a number of senior Pentagon officials and military officers...

[Rob Thornton]

Well,
I suspect it will take more then 120 days to get the required personnel, train them and get them in the pipe - it sounds like they don't exist yet. While out team 1SG was on leave in El Paso he said they were recruiting at a job fair for PRT members.
If you are going to ask the military to do it until OGAs reorganize and build capacity within their own organizations, then fine - first resource us to do it - Big money bonuses (say $50K - tax free) for Reservists with the sought after skill sets. Then add on pro-pay for the capacity you want them to serve in, not the E-6 drill pay they get in their ARNG unit. Then pay them as a GS 11-13. Ask them to do it for 12 months - so you know that you have someone reliable for a year while the OGAs restructure to meet GWOT demands - and when their 12 months tour is up I'd recommend 2 things - first a promotion and another 50K to stay another 12 months, the second is a promotion and X-fer to the FS to become the cadre for State's new branch of expeditionary folks.
Pay these folks what they are worth, and you just might have another option besides going to the PMCs - which is what I see happening if they try and stick to < 120 day timeline

[Rob Thornton]

I meant to add I thought of the above post as recruiting / promoting from within. There is already the aparatus for getting the word out - AKO, DKO, etc. ; and for identifying and appealing on a personal level those folks we want - but lets not half step and try to get our talent on the cheap - if you want them to stay - pay them what they are worth, take care of them and their families and you will probably start on the right foot. There are probably allot of retirees and recently seperated folks who would be great, but are considering offers from contract type jobs or the private sector - give them a competitive (a real one) and a good bonus, and they'd probably sign on.

[120mm]

An interesting proposal would be, at the end of the year tour, the Reservist would have automatic seniority for an FS job over any FS personnel with comparable skill set who had not been to Iraq.

Tell Kenworth Malcom III that he needs to call Buffy and the kids and to pack his "desert" loafers with tassels.

[Old Eagle]

There were two other articles over the weekend on this subject: Sen Lugar in the Wash Times advocating new resources and force structure for civilian agencies and Thom Shanker's NYT piece explaining that the military would fill civilian slots until other agencies could pick up the slack. LOL

Truth of the matter is that if the military is going to pick this up as a primary mission (DoDDir 3000.05?) or whether other government agencies do it, they are going to need major changes across DOTMLPF. Continuing to do the missions ad hoc with general purpose forces is not going to cut it. GPF don't have the expertise and gutting them to do the civilian functions further hollows their organizations.

IMHO the executive branch is incapable of such radical change on its own, and Congress will probably have to shove it down our throats as they did w/Goldwater-Nichols. My preference is to get off our dead behinds and do it ourselves.

[jcustis]

An interesting proposal would be, at the end of the year tour, the Reservist would have automatic seniority for an FS job over any FS personnel with comparable skill set who had not been to Iraq.

Tell Kenworth Malcom III that he needs to call Buffy and the kids and to pack his "desert" loafers with tassels.

What is the FS going to do with those skill sets once they acquire them and bring 'em into the fold? There may be a reason why those skills aren't resident within the diplomatic corps as it is.

Is the FS even the target audience for broadening its horizons and skills? I would have thought that USAID would benefit the most from members who aren't afraid to go into the breach and face dangerous situations.

I honestly don't see the DoS re-structuring to accomodate these skill sets, but rather letting out contracts to do it. Heck, with BW Aviation, they'd even have the rotary-wing assets to move the PRT personnel around and avoid the dangerous LOCs. :rolleyes:

[SWJED]

Shanker's NY Times article is linked to from post # 12. Here is Senator Richard Lugar's Washington Times commentary - Strengthen Civilian Forces, Too (http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20070217-103015-5601r.htm):


American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are foremost in our thoughts and prayers, but the U.S. military has been quietly fighting the war against terror in scores of other foreign countries. Since September 11, 2001, the number of military personnel and Defense Department activities in non-combat countries has soared.

Finding, capturing and eliminating terrorists and their support networks are only part of the military's new mission. They have won new authority outside the traditional foreign aid framework to provide military training to foreign countries. Increasingly, the military is taking on roles once reserved for civilian agencies, such as building schools and clinics, drilling wells and conducting public information campaigns.

A strong military response is necessary for the war against terrorism. When our foreign friends use our training and intelligence to round up global terrorists on their soil, it is clearly a mutual success. But over-reliance on the military also carries risks.

To succeed, we need diplomats who can shape complex bilateral relationships, repair and build alliances and navigate through a labyrinth of foreign languages and cultures. We need foreign aid experts who know how best to promote democratic practices and economic development. And we need communication professionals to get our message across to foreign audiences.

These civilians are our best hope for defusing religious extremism and defeating international terrorism long-term...

More at the link...

[jcustis]

Worse, it could actually hurt our anti-terror efforts by giving too strong a military cast to our programs and policies, fueling suspicion and resentment overseas.

And to think I was hoping that relaxed grooming standards would be in force...:rolleyes:

[SWJED]

For reference and background material on tis topic don't forget the Interagency section (http://smallwarsjournal.com/reference/interagency.php) in the SWJ Reference Library (http://smallwarsjournal.com/reference/).

[120mm]

Time to look to the Phillipines again:

Just finished reading a paper for the 2003 Combat Studies Institute, about how US military force in the Phillipines routinely, and with aplomb, managed to fight a guerilla war and efficiently run an administration. These were Officers and NCOs without a professional development school system, by the way. (Perhaps part of the problem, hmmmm?)

Is it perhaps time to quit pretending the Active Duty military is incapable of doing more than one thing at a time? For one thing, the "up or out" system of promotion is a big culprit. Officers who make Captain in 36 months are hardly competent in their combat jobs, much less have the seasoning to run a town or a district.

And I think it's high time we brought back long hair and big, drooping moustaches.

[SWJED]

21 February NY Times - Negroponte Advises New Diplomats to Seek Challenging Posts (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/21/washington/21negroponte.html?ref=world) by Thom Shanker.


Entering his first full week as deputy secretary of state, John D. Negroponte on Tuesday urged a graduating class of new diplomats to seek overseas assignments in challenging, difficult and even hazardous posts.

Mr. Negroponte, only the third career Foreign Service officer to hold the deputy position, said the diplomatic corps was shifting its weight from historic centers of politics and policy to increase the American presence in world capitals more subject to turmoil.

Potential assignments in Iraq were very much on the minds of many students at the Foreign Service Institute, where 4 members of this class of 75 will go to work in Baghdad or with provincial reconstruction teams throughout the country.

Mr. Negroponte’s comments will resonate across the diplomatic corps because of an animated interagency debate here in Washington about the proper way to share the burden among the government’s civilian agencies and the military to carry out the Bush administration’s new Iraq strategy...

[jcustis]

That's a win for State if you go thru with it, but it's a tragic sign of the times that those two qualities (MI and Arabic) don't pop up on some staffer/planner's Excel spreadsheet. I know that every battalion commander in the box would probably give up his own unit funds to bring those capabilities on board.

[Jimbo]

Want to work for state, well I take it you are going to donate a year of your life for no compensation?

[Stratiotes]

It's kindof a catch-22 - civilians do not want to be involved unless security is improved (understandably) but the military says security cannot be improved unless civilians are involved. Is there an answer?

[Jimbo]

Well,

COCOM's aren't the people who make those deciosions. Army HRC would determine if they needed your MOS not CENTCOM (NAVY/AF?Whatever). If you worked for CENTCOM in the past and they know you, great. However, DoD determines who goes to State, COCOMS only provide forces as tasked by DoD (JS). CENTCOM might send some LNO's to State, and they might have direct coordination authorization, but CENTCOM has very limited execution authority. If you feel you can utilized, then you need to engage through your respective service to go on active duty. That may or may not be in the CENTCOM AOR, and it may or may not be at State.

As far as DoS, I have read a lot of good ideas and such on here about what should happen. A couple of points, PDD-56 has been out since Jan 20, 200. NSPD-44 is the current document that they use (both similar). State has said a bunch of good things about what they want to do. The problem is money. DoS operates on a continuing resolution because their budget hasn't been approved. Civilian Reserv Corps and such have no money attached them at this time and no money budgeted. That is why DoD is having to support the intial PRT surge. DoS is trying to figure out how they are going to do PRT-type missions over time. There are a bunch of good ideas, but there is a hesitance to go out and ask for the resources in either personnel or money. Fortunately, a bunch of this should get resolved in the next 60 days. The downside, is that an optimistic view would be that in 180 days DoS can meet the surge requirement, pessimistic view would be a wait out until the FY08 budget gets done.

[Old Eagle]

That was kinda the point of my last post.

The State Dept does not have the force structure to support all this SSTR stuff, even though they should. Maybe they need an analog organization to the CIA's "ground branch". Maybe they need a better reach back to the recently retired community. As you all know, simply stripping existing units or the schoolhouse to fill undocumented requirements hurts everybody.

If, however, somehow under DoDDir 3000.05, these functions become all military, then DoD needs major force structure changes to meet the requirements.

As you all know, once again, it's not having one qualified face for each space, it's having between 2.5 and 3 in order to keep up the rotation, get folks trained etc.

Nothing good is happening in the next 180 days. Maybe a bandaid on the sucking chest wound.

[120mm]

Well,

COCOM's aren't the people who make those deciosions. Army HRC would determine if they needed your MOS not CENTCOM (NAVY/AF?Whatever).

And therein lies the problem. The question is, which drunken monkey is the one who makes the decisions and what is the fix over-centralized and non-responsive piece of crap that IS the HRC?

Thanks for getting my pulse rate up this morning.

[Bill Meara]

http://www.afsa.org/fsj/mar04/rieff.pdf

[SWJED]

24 February Washington Post - Iraq Rebuilding Short on Qualified Civilians (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/23/AR2007022302049.html) by Rajiv Chandrasekaran.


In Diyala, the vast province northeast of Baghdad where Sunnis and Shiites are battling for primacy with mortars and nighttime abductions, the U.S. government has contracted the job of promoting democracy to a Pakistani citizen who has never lived or worked in a democracy.

The management of reconstruction projects in the province has been assigned to a Border Patrol commander with no reconstruction experience. The task of communicating with the embassy in Baghdad has been handed off to a man with no background in drafting diplomatic cables. The post of agriculture adviser has gone unfilled because the U.S. Department of Agriculture has provided just one of the six farming experts the State Department asked for a year ago.

"The people our government has sent to Iraq are all dedicated, well-meaning people, but are they really the right people -- the best people -- for the job?" asked Kiki Skagen Munshi, a retired U.S. Foreign Service officer who, until last month, headed the team in Diyala that included the Pakistani democracy educator and the Border Patrol commander. "If you can't get experts, it's really hard to do an expert job." ...

[jcustis]

The following has been blasted out to Army Reserve personnel.


Just got this USAR-wide message in my AKO account....
---------------------------------

The Department of Defense is asking for Army Reserve Soldiers and Civilian Employees to volunteer for service with the Department of State's Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRT) in Iraq to promote security and economic development and assist the Iraqi people in rebuilding and administering their country. Civil Affairs Officers, in particular, are needed. Period of service is 9-12 months, with mission start date of 1 May 07.

Those with the requisite skill sets are encouraged to apply:
- Agri-Business
- Business Specialists
- Economics
- City Management
- City Management/Engineering
- Governance
- Industry Specialist
- Medical
- Rule of Law
- Veterinarian

Army Reserve Soldiers must volunteer by 15 Mar 2007 through their chain to USARC G1. (Refer to USARC WARNORD 001 211700ZFEB-07 (Civilian Volunteers for Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) in Iraq). Additional information on the status and funding of volunteers will be announced in the near future. Information on duty descriptions is at http://www.cpms.osd.mil/gwot

Army Reserve Civilians should volunteer NLT 26 Feb 07 via the Army Resume Builder/Resumix process. Employees who qualify are endorsed by HQ USARC and will be detailed in a TDY status (non-reimbursable) at their current grade. For application information, visit http://www.cpms.osd.mil/gwot

The Army Reserve's senior leadership appreciates your consideration of this volunteer request.

[Bill Moore]

While the NG obviously has more people skilled in these civil skills than the active duty, they cannot support long duration operations (several years) on the scale required. I'm active duty, so I speak with no expertise, but have been reminded several times by NG folks they also have another life, another job, and they can't stay away from it forever. We need the NG and Reserves to step up now (or continue stepping up), but the Army should be thinking long term and training a cadre of experts in these areas. Unlike the Air Force and Navy, the Army has tended to shy away from advanced technical training, and instead hires contractors to work at the depot level. Perhaps this a gap that the Navy and the Air Force can fill?

[120mm]

While the NG obviously has more people skilled in these civil skills than the active duty, they cannot support long duration operations (several years) on the scale required. I'm active duty, so I speak with no expertise, but have been reminded several times by NG folks they also have another life, another job, and they can't stay away from it forever. We need the NG and Reserves to step up now (or continue stepping up), but the Army should be thinking long term and training a cadre of experts in these areas. Unlike the Air Force and Marines, the Army has tended to shy away from advanced technical training, and instead hires contractors to work at the depot level. Perhaps this a gap that the Navy and the Air Force can fill?

Actually, the mobilization process has created quite a few unemployed/divorced NG/Reserve guys with the right skill-set. For quite a few folks, like me, this is a pretty good deal. I've been a military contractor since mobilization in 2003. There aren't a whole bunch of stable jobs paying at the correct level that I can get outside military contracting or picking up the occasional tour or two.

I see it as a "win-win" situation. You get the mindset/skills you need, and the Guardsman/Reservist gets another chance at a career.