Foreign Internal Defense (Indigenous Forces)

[John T. Fishel]

An American Ambassador is the personal representative of POTUS. His or her fomal chain of command is POTUS to AMB. SECSTATE is more on the order of CJCS - in the chain of communication not chain of command. A career FSO confirmed by the Senate as an Ambassador must (according to Amb David Passage in multiple lectures at CGSC Fort Leavenworth) resign from the Foreeign Service (to be reinstated when his ambassadorship is over). Note that a significant minority of Ambassadors are appointed from the outside - notably in the current world, Eikenberry in A'stan and now his successor, Ryan Crocker (retired). Zalmay Khalilzad was also appointed ambssador to both A'stan and Iraq from outside the Foreign Service.

In the McCaffrey Wars of the early 90s when the general claimed that MILGP commanders worked for him, he was backed by the DEPSECSTATE who had to be reminded by Amb to Colombia Morris Busby and Ambassador to Guatemala Marilyn MacAffee that they did not work for him but for Pres Clinton. Amb MacAffee ordered an ongoing military exercise shut down in 24 hours - it took 48. McCaffrey left SOUTHCOM for the drug czar office but MacAffee stayed as ambassador outlasting him and ignoring State.

So, I say again, what do we mean by DOS lead? Ever wonder why many DCMs as Charge d'Affaires seem to be afraid of their own shadows? It is because they DO work for DOS.

Cheers

JohnT

[Bill Moore]

John,

As you stated the AMB is the direct representative of the President, but I think most people see the role the AMB not only a representative of the President, but as a State Department employee. While an important point, the bottom line is DOD is not the in the lead. It is providing military support to our overall effort, and not transforming it into our war. In contrast a DOD lead is where the military is not only the main effort, but the U.S. military starts to take the lead in the fighting.

Getting back to the State Department issue, every FID mission I have been on the money was controlled by a person in State proper at Foggy Bottom and he-she had the final say on what would get funded and what wouldn't. Usually this person worked harder than our Iron Majors and was managing numerous programs simultaneously, so your time to ask for more received limited attention.

There is a black and white legalistic answer when State is in charge (title 22) and when DOD is in charge (title 10), but I am more interested in who is making the calls and shaping the policy. State can notionally be charge, and get run over by DOD in some cases. I haven't been on one mission where (except JTF Liberia and that wasn't FID) where the commander didn't want more resources-people. If you get more people you can do what? The answer is you can do more, which means the host nation does less and that is where the downward spiral starts.

[John T. Fishel]

We need to recall that Security Assistance is a DOS program enabled (or constrained) by the Foreign Assistance Act (FAA) of 1961 (as amended) and the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) of 1976 (as amended). Any program funded and/or controlled by these acts is subject to DOS supervision at the very least. Most FID is funded as FMS/FMF(a bit under IMET and ESF) which are all FAA programs. While there is some counternarcotics funding not under the FAA and programs of Joint Exercises (JCETs for example) and Title 10 H/CA these are merely add ons to FID programs funded by FAA. And, these "add ons" are subject to the approval of the Amb whio is advised by his Country Team (only 2 members of which wear uniforms - most of the rest are DOS).

One might be able to make a distinction between FID - a normal program run by the Amb and his CT and SFA in the midst of a major military operation. Yet, i am not sure the distinction is real or valid. I would argue that the SFA mission in Iraq was relatively successful due, in large part, to the mind meld of GEN petraeus and Amb Crocker. So, who had the lead C or P or P or C? Yes! But that is what makes the situation so unusual and it was made to work by the 2 guys on the ground. There is no standard "command relationship" that can dictate such a structure and a reluctance on the part of all presidents in my lifetime to say who is in charge of such a situation.

Your point that constrained resources makes people use what they have more effectively (and efficiently) is wise.