Hitting Bottom in Foggy Bottom
This one from Foreign Policy caught my eye this AM on the SWJ Blog
Quote:
Another report by the State Department's inspector general this year described severe and broad dysfunction within the Africa bureau, while ignoring -- perhaps considering it a given -- the lack of departmentwide integration and leadership in operations. Examples of the dysfunction range from not providing public diplomacy personnel with computers capable of reading interoffice memos to a failure to effectively work with the new Africa Command.
Why am I not surprised?
Quote:
By necessity, the Defense Department has stepped in where State Department has tuned out: Foggy Bottom relies on Pentagon funding and even personnel for basic operations central to its mission. For example, the Defense Department now performs much strategic communications work traditionally the purview of the State Department. In Somalia, for example, the State Department's budget for public diplomacy is $30,000. The Pentagon's is $600,000. And, in the State Department's bureaucratic wisdom, the $30,000 does not even belong to its undersecretary for public diplomacy and public affairs.
And roger as I serve as a POLAD
Related Link at MoutainRunner
Preparing to Lose the Information War? - Matt Armstrong, MountainRunner.
Quote:
It has now been eight years since 9/11 and we finally seem to understand that in the modern struggles against terrorism, insurgency, and instability, the tools of public diplomacy are invaluable and essential. We live in a world where an individual with a camera phone can wield more influence than an F-22 stealth fighter jet. The capability of engaging public audiences has long been thought of as the domain of civilians. But for the past eight years, the functions, authorities, and funding for engaging global audiences, from anti-AIDS literature to soccer balls to development projects, has migrated from the State Department to the Defense Department. It seems whole forests have fallen over the same period on the need to enhance civilian agencies - be it the State Department or a new USIA-like entity - to provide a valid alternative to the Defense Department who most, even the detractors, agree was filling a void left by civilians who abrogated their responsibility for one reason or another.
This summer may be a turning point. Some in Congress have unilaterally decided that 2010 is the year America's public diplomacy will stop wearing combat boots. Sounds good, right? This is the future most, including analysts and the military, have wished for. The military has been the unwilling (if passionate once engaged) and often clumsy surrogate and partner for the State Department in representing the US and its interests in Africa, the Middle East, and elsewhere around the world through what the House Armed Services Committee now calls "military public diplomacy." In some regions, State is almost wholly dependent on Defense money and resources to accomplish its mandate...
More at MountainRunner.
Heh. Now you can underdtand why the US of A seems to
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Spud
Personally I think it is this issue that Matt highlights that is of more concern:...I’m confused :confused:
be more confused than you; because we is!!! :D
Our Congress has 535 members. Getting two to agree completely on much of anything has been proven impossible...:(
State Department Systematic Failures
State department types are concerned with who gets invited to what cocktail party and how to quickly get out of whatever strategically critical "hole" they findthemselves in and more to a comfortable "hole". Those that do stay at the "hole" and may go "native". IMHO this is Zero value added at best, contrary to American interests at worst.
When we needed them most, they have failed utterly.
Problems at the Macro level
Two fundamental questions haven't been asked by the State types that are completely hampering our efforts.
1. Is AFghanistan a viable country in a post cold war era?
2. Is the Constitution of Afghanistan a legitimate reflection of the needs of the Afghan people.
We have hitched ourselves to a government founded in a Western European Socialist government Constitution. While lip service is paid to Islam, the list of promises it makes is ridiculous and unfufillable. Combine that with Provincial Governors appointed by Karzai, yet without any monetary carrot or stick to use. They can be blamed for all as governors, yet they have zero ability to influence their provinces.
The Provincial ANP Chiefs report directly to Kabul, despite the regional police headquarters, which have no corresponding civilian leadership.
The ANA work for the Afghan RC Commander. The coalition reports to the ISAF RC. The PRT works for HQ Kabul with coordination to the RCs. Yet the governor stands there as the senior representative of the Kabul Government. He does NOT stand there as the representative of the Province he serves in.
The parliment is toothless and ineffective by both tradition and the Constitution.
The governance at the Provincial level (where you are going to win or lose) is a shake with no foundation and several forces working against that stability. That a governor can be removed on a whim (or allowed to stay against the wishes of the population) just defeats so many basic principles as to be laughable.
The Afghan population can be won. But the current guise of the IGoA is one that I believe will never be supported by the population as a whole.
The Sherzai fiasco really burned our bridges in the South and I think our current troubles in the past few years can be more directly linked to that act of stupidity than any other.
As an aside and not to intrude on a good conversation but
we had a civilian Agency that did development well and cooperated well with DoD elements -- it was founded to do just that following on to the earlier Marshall Plan, FOA and ICA organizations.
US Aid.
Unfortunately, it got subsumed into State under the Clinton administration and destroyed because it was often too good at what it did and was sucking budget dollars away from State. The Arms Control and Disarmament Agency and the really rather effective US Information Agency were likewise emasculated at about the same time for pretty much the same reason. Madeleine Albright has a lot to answer for... :rolleyes:
The required fix is to reconstitute US Aid and USIA as separate agencies and adequately fund 'em. Realistically, that's unlikely to happen for several reasons -- not least the venality of Congress. So, we're stuck in Neverland. :eek: :rolleyes:
We now return to our regularly scheduled program... ;)
Seems like this discussion never end's because everyone already knows the answers
Just No-one willing to accept them cause they involve difficult and often painful actions
Like the man said
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sylvan
It starts when diplomacy is tempered by experience outside the embassy set.
AKA, never.
What diplomat is going to tell a senior official, "Oh, btw, your constitution sucks." Especially when it was largely our dumb butts who helped them craft it.
I would---
But then again;probably why guys like me would never get to be a diplomat ; or ever get invited to the cocktail party's :wry: