Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
But the issue I wanted to raise is that where one draws the line between war and peace also determines how one is likely to see the appropriateness of this diplomacy mission. I believe that Wilf places that line in a very different place than I do, and sees soldiers primarily being used in war for purposes of war. Gian probably drops on to the scale near to Wilf, Ken White somewhere down from there, skip a ways to Bill Moore, and then to me. I'm not sure who is right, and listen to everyone's perspective in order to improve my own.

In peacetime engagement, and I believe the majority of our engagement is certainly in support of a US that is at peace, are rooted in diplomacy. As operations become more warlike this role becomes less the focus, but must never be completely forgotten. I just would not put to much expectation on our conventional forces to be great diplomats; it just isn't in the culture.
I don't think it's a question of who's right or wrong so much as it is understanding the practical role that the US military often finds itself in. Historically, officers have been called on to be de-facto diplomats with surprising regularity. Some were successful, some were not, and others muddled through until the real diplomats arrived. In most, if not all, cases these officers were not trained for those roles...it was just something they did because it went with the job. It also wasn't something that was necessarily planned by the political leadership. A great deal of it is situational.

It's fine to have a dream role for soldiers...where they sit in the corner quietly and only come out guns blazing when called for and then go back again as soon as the last bullet is fired. But reality isn't like that. I can understand the desire for it to be so, but do worry that when we get too focused on what we'd like to see we end up gutting ourselves for reality. Quite often the line between war and peace is only visible in hindsight, and even then not necessarily with stark clarity.

Should soldiers be diplomats? Not under ideal circumstances, but it's a good thing if they are at least aware that they might have to act in such a role in some situations. By the same token, we've seen what happens when diplomats try to play soldier.