How To Win

[Tom Odom]

So do you mean that when the man on the ground comes to write his reports, and recommends actions, that such recommendations could be said to be "setting and defining foreign policy."

I guess the line from "Charlie Wilson's War" - "we don't have a policy on Afghanistan" - must have been true.

Ignoring the later sarcasm, I mean the sum total of interaction on the ground--be that writing reports, meeting with counterparts including the Vice Presient/Secretary of Defense one on one, or sharing information with a senior operations officer or a senior intelligence officer--enter into the creation and defining of foreign policy. If one is summoned to the VPs office and he is poised to pull out of a reciprocal program, then what you say in that office and how you react defines where the foreign policy that established that program in the first place. That is but one example.

Tom

[William F. Owen]

Ignoring the later sarcasm,

No sarcasm intended. At was an attempt at mood lightening, observational humour.

I mean the sum total of interaction on the ground--be that writing reports, meeting with counterparts including the Vice Presient/Secretary of Defense one on one, or sharing information with a senior operations officer or a senior intelligence officer--enter into the creation and defining of foreign policy. If one is summoned to the VPs office and he is poised to pull out of a reciprocal program, then what you say in that office and how you react defines where the foreign policy that established that program in the first place. That is but one example.

All those things are good. In the British Army, that is what the "MILO" -military liaison intelligence officers - used to do. Maybe they still do. I have not carried a drunken one back to his hotel in 15 years.

Sure, always good to have military input from the coal face, but that is distinctly different from an officer on the ground, deciding to back X group against another or to reverse a policy already in place. Best he can do, is to argue his case and then act when instructed to do so, his plans first having been scrutinised by the diplomats. Historically the best I can offer is the difference between Allenby's success in the Palestine campaign, versus MacArthur getting himself sacked in Korea.

To whit, and my concern in this thread, while I applaud the Col Jones's insights as to "PCE", his paper does not, to mind, make clear that PCE is a going to have to be set against a very stringent and very specific policy context.

"...that populaces have the right to choose the form of governance which suits them best..." cannot be, or underpin, an overall approach to operations. It's like basing FM-3 on the universal declaration of human rights. Military Force is for the breaking of will, not the building of nations.

[Tom Odom]

Sure, always good to have military input from the coal face, but that is distinctly different from an officer on the ground, deciding to back X group against another or to reverse a policy already in place. Best he can do, is to argue his case and then act when instructed to do so, his plans first having been scrutinised by the diplomats. Historically the best I can offer is the difference between Allenby's success in the Palestine campaign, versus MacArthur getting himself sacked in Korea.

Again Wilf, a military officer serviing in a country team as an attache or a security assistance officer is a diplomat. As for backing a group, that is another decision that can be made at the local level if it is done so under a general policy umbrella.

There are varying degrees of influence and decisionmaking authority accorded officers serving in such positions depending on country, crisis, and national interest. In the larger countries that would be much less than you would find in Africa or Latin America. It tends to be a case of management by exception; the framework is established and you make the decisions within that framework. If once Washington hears of those decisions, they accept, you are good. If not, then you may face recall. But if you believe that every single decision is vetted and scrutinized by a panel of policy makers, you are mistaken. It does not work that way, nor should it.

Military Force is for the breaking of will, not the building of nations.

That makes a nice neat slogan, Wilf, and I know you like to repeat it. It bears little resemblance to the reality of the Congo, Iraq, or Afghanistan.

We will have to agree to disagree.

Tom

[Rob Thornton]

Military Force is for the breaking of will, not the building of nations.

That makes a nice neat slogan, Wilf, and I know you like to repeat it. It bears little resemblance to the reality of the Congo, Iraq, or Afghanistan.

Wilf,
I'd have to say military power, in the context of being an element of U.S. national power, is for achieving U.S. political objectives. While it is perhaps best suited for compelling others to conform to our will, it can, is and has been used for other purposes such as freeing those being compelled or terrorized by others. Context matters.
To this end, there is a "build" component to our use of the U.S. military. You may not qualify this as the use of "military force", or even the use military power, but it is clearly the use of military forces. I'd submit that while one can argue the semantics of the "ways", the result is "means" committed to an end.

Best, Rob

[William F. Owen]

Wilf,
While it is perhaps best suited for compelling others to conform to our will, it can, is and has been used for other purposes such as freeing those being compelled or terrorized by others. Context matters.

...and that is central to my thesis. Freeing the oppressed still requires violence, as an instrument. Unless you are using armed force, there is little point in using armed forces. I am not talking hurricane relief or any other of the "can do" missions. I am talking about what underpins doctrines, configuration and training.

Context is critical, but force is force. Military force should be force and not the pedalling of influence. Leave that to the other arms of Government.

[Eden]

I have to admit when I read COL Jones' piece, my first reaction was 'mehhhh...' It doesn't appear to me to be saying anything particularly new or insightful. We should support good governance. OK. We should rely less on brute force. Check. The State Department should have the lead on foreign relations and setting foreign policy. No objections there.

Having followed the thread since, I'm surprised such a pedestrian essay should generate so much controversy. I mean, there are no new ideas there. And, practically, it is doubtful we could implement a PCE if we wanted to.

First of all, where good governance already exists, it would be superfluous. Where governance is poor, it is usually because an entrenched minority is governing for its own benefit. Promoting good governance is going to put us at odds with the existing power structure in many places - that is, we will become insurgents more often than we would be counterinsurgents.

Second, in those places where governance is poor but the government is altruistic, the cause must be poverty - of resources, of technology, of markets, or some combination thereof. Certainly we should promote good governance in those spaces, but I am skeptical of the US ability to truly address underlying, endemic problems such as those even where our indigenous partners are willing participants.

Thirdly, I don't see our State Department as becoming proponents of good governance in any but the most superficial sense. They are diplomats, trained (and organized) to deal with states and state structures, not with populations. I just don't see them becoming agents of change capable of reforming poorly governing states.

Finally, I'll repeat what I said earlier: I don't believe many outside the west share our paradigm of the purpose of government. The idea that governments exist 'for the people' is relatively new, though I will admit it is an idea in the ascendent.

I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. Can anyone provide an example of successful PCE? Especially, can anyone provide an example of successful PCE where the engaging power had to work through a local government - that is, where the engaging power did not rule directly the territory under consideration?

[Beelzebubalicious]

State Dept, in and of itself, can't do PCE, but USAID can and does do this. There are numerous examples in various countries.

I think there's a disconnect or misunderstanding regarding good governance. Governments, whether national or local, have certain functions to perform and meeting basic needs is the most important (providing security, delivering services, etc.). That's just governance. Most governments in developing countries and fragile states don't even perform their core functions well and that's where institutions like USAID can help to strenghten the effectiveness and legitimacy of the government. Beyond this, good governance refers to reaching out to and including citizens in decision-making, being open and transparent, etc. These aspects of governance are often new and unwelcome by other governments, hence the unwillingness. But providing core functions effectively and efficiently can and should reduce the root causes for frustration and dissatisfaction.

The new term now is good enough governance as good governance is a bit of a stretch for most governments. It has to be a model that works in the local context, is phased to address priorities and accepts the inherent trade-offs and realities of working in these countries.

We need to stop beating the drum of good governance. Frankly, the US govt doesn't do it all that well itself (in the broadest and most complete sense of what good governance entails).