As somebody who works north of the river and inside the beltway, there is a HUGE unity of command issue going on currently between the different agencies and organizations of the executive branch. The idea of a czar is the best one I have heard yet. Currently many different orgganizations either don't see themselves having a role in either place, or they see themselves having a role, but they will only particiapte on thier own terms, leaving no room for reaching a consensus. These problems have manifested themselves in the requirement for the Defense Department to resource a majority of the reconstruction effort, and the inability of the government to define roles, missions, scope, and expectations of one another.

The lack of unity of command at the naitonal level exacerbates the the issue sthat arrive on the gorund. At a recent NATO conference, our ISAF partners were frustrated with each other over each partner country executing their own agenda on how to do PRT's and cCOIN. Some were very good, and some only work from 9 to 5. Our NATO partners, stated that theykeep getting different stories from each diofferent agency in the USG. In Iraq, this lead to a disjointed effort between the various entities that the State Department owns. Some do not work for the ambassador, and most use thier informal reporting chain back to the Truman building as opposed to the systems that are supposed to be used on the ground. This problem is maganfied when you add the uniformed services, the defense Department, and other executive agencies. The lack of Unity of Command over this effort in Washington is one of the reasons we have not been able to maximize the D,I,and E parts of DIME in our operations. Bottom line:

When you only execute the "M" in DIME, you do "DIE". It is pathetic that you do this because of squabbling and whining over "rice bowls" in DC.