1 Attachment(s)
Obstacles to a Whole of Government Approach: DoD versus State AOR's
Posted in another forum today. Interesting laydown of how State and DoD organize and view the world. Interestingly, some major hotspots are divided between COCOMs in DoD's laydown (Israel/Arabs, India/Pakistan). I think in general State's boundaries make more sense.
Is there any wonder why our government approach to foreign/mil policy is disjointed?
Who Has All The Best Toys.... Wins
This whole shebang can be summarized by the Haves (CINCs) and Have-Nots (State).
Back when I first performed an MTT in Sub-Sahara (Pre Goldwater-Nichols military reform act), State had most of the toys and controlled mucho cash. Our minuscule and hopeless mission would be dictated by the Ambassador (who had yet to serve a minute in the US Military).
Following the circa '86 reform act... Whoa Nellie! Among many other advantages, this act provided the CINCs with sweeping authority over any other weenie operating in their theater.
The CINCs then were affectionately known as America's Warlords :D
It's all about toys these days except for perhaps the Northern Command covering (ahem) the Homeland and scarfing up Mexico and Canada.
A little perspective is in order:
SECSTATE is the one and only US diplomat with an airplane (His minions must fly commercial or ask for space-available on military transports :p).
Wait for it !
In contrast, each CINC has his own aircraft (and helicopters for short flights). In-flight refueling? No Problem. Most CINCs travel with a platoon of officers and senior NCOs.
So, why all the differences between State and DOD? Haven't the foggiest idea, but, do almost know why DOD pounds a different drum :cool:
About every two years DOD gets to reorganize the CINC (doms) and shuffle the countries based on current relations. Such reshuffling took place with the Baltic States under EUCOM sending a clear signal to President Putin and even more evident when the review board gave Islamic States and Central Asia to CENTCOM.
it's much more than State vs DOD
As someone who has had to interact up and down the chain as well as across the interagency, it's much more complicated than DOD vs State in determining which country is in which planning and coordinating function. To my memory, the Joint Staff, OSD, DIA, CIA and State all have different names for their country desk collections, i.e. Central Asia/South Asia, or Near East Asia, or something else. At first, it was confounding because if you had to coordinate something, you had to figure out which office to call.
I see both sides of the coin, by allowing flexibility, differing agencies can task organize as they see fit, I mean US AID or State has valid reasons why they are organized just as within the DOD. I also see the reasoning for whole of government "let's all row the same direction" methodology. This would have to be a push down from the NSC or National Security Advisor to change.
Cheers
Otto
One Map to the Rule them All . . .
To me the biggest concern with having different boundaries has to do with much needed integration and coordination at the inter-agency level. No matter how the map is divided up, each region should have a:
- Director of Regional Foreign Policy
Who is supported by:
- Unified Combatant Commander (from DoD)
- Deputy Director of Regional Aid and Development (from USAID)
- Deputy Director of Regional Affairs (from State)
Everybody looks at the same map, works with the same people, out of the same office. Major NGOs and regional powers are invited to send liasons to the Regional Commands. Maybe they don't get a seat at the briefing table all the time, but if the PACOM commander wants to coordinate Tsunami relief efforts with PLAN, they should be able to do that because they already have a working relationship.
Marauder Doc, see my first post
As I said there, the issue is not so much regional boundaries (which, IMO, should be rationalized - see both previosus posts) but rather the bilateral nature of US foreign relations. The current structure is specifically designed to address that. Thus the "chain of command" in US foreign relations runs:
President
US Ambassador to Country X
It also runs:
President
SECSTATE
Regional & functional bureaus in suppport of Ambassadors
And, it runs:
President
SECDEF
GCCs (generally) in support of Ambassadors
So, your regional organizational structure is based on, I think, the faulty premise that we do business - primarily - regionally. Any modification to the current structure must start from the position that US foreign relations are, and probaly will remain, primarily bilateral. Until that changes, all schemes for powerful regional organizations of US foreign relations will fail.
Cheers
JohnT