Also, the shortage of USAID/State personnel is not going to be solved by these USG agency personnel (or private experts - eg. ag professors - from Iowa etc). Why? USAID staff main function is to design national strategies but mostly the lion share of the work is contract management and specific technical program design approaches (do no harm principles, etc). I am continually confounded by the perception that many have that "anyone can do development work". I guess being the daughter of a superintendent and public school teacher makes me sensitive too as it smacks the same way - "I went to school so I can teach" or in some folks mind "I want to do good, so I can do it"

To me, it makes sense to bolster the ranks (therefore funding) of USAID and or in the interim continue to do what is being done to staff USAID missions in Iraq and Afghanistan - hiring more firms that provide the USAID profile personnel (IRG has over 500 folks in the field right now in these roles).

But, as we know, this is not going to happen soon by a long shot. The military appropriately sees that it needs to bolster its abilities so they can be responsive to their mandate. I believe private development firms can contribute to DoD effort to "get up to speed" on these new issues. Why ignore a potential resource available?

Finally, it confuses me why there is an accepted tradition to hire contractors to help with surge capacity in areas that military services are known to traditionally be experts in (Logistics support, camp management, etc) but yet, in an area where there is professed "inexperience", the idea of contractors makes people very uncomfortable? We seem to be "okay" with paying the cost of surge capacity in areas we know well, why not "pay the cost" for surge capacity in a crucial area the military does not know well?

Sorry for the ramble but am afraid I am jet lagged but did want to continue the discussion before too much time passed.

Look forward to your thoughts

Thanks and best regards, Bronwen