________________________________________
In debating if soldiers are also diplomats or not, it may be helpful to rephrase the question and take a fresh perspective. Certainly in war the primary diplomacy waged by soldiers is that which is inherent in their very actions, and shaped by their values and conduct. In peace soldiers have a very different role, from Port Calls (proudly touted as security assistance by our Navy brothers) to FID, to even what is often called COIN. In these missions and environments the success of the engagement is very much shaped more by the diplomatic skills of the soldier in his interactions with the populace, security forces, and foreign officials, than by any martial acts conducted. For SF soldiers, this is bread and butter, and we are very good at it; always recognizing that we are guests, and that we can only be effective in passing on any unique skills we may possess when we can set our egos aside and embrace the people, the culture and the forces we engage with for what they are, and not what they are not.
Conventional forces are not particularly good at this. When I left 8 years of Regular Army service to attend law school, I joined the Oregon National Guard and was in on the ground floor of the "Enhanced Brigade" program. My former RA brethren descended on us in hordes, forcing us to literally expand the size of our TOCs to three times their normal size to be able to accommodate the unit's staff, an equal size team of "mentors", and another equal size team of "evaluators." My job was hard enough to go to law school full time and also serve as the operations officer for a light infantry battalion an hours drive away that only got the chance to train a couple days a month. To also have to tolerate a crush of arrogant a-holes who looked down their noses at you as being sadly inferior; while (depending on which team you were on) dishing out endless advice or judgment as to how what you were doing was not they way the did it in their last assignment with the 82nd. No kidding, guess what, my soldiers don't live on post. This was not the exception, this was the norm. I see this same syndrome overseas in similar engagement with foreign armies. I give our conventional forces a D- for diplomacy. They may be getting better with recent experience in Afghanistan and Iraq, but I doubt they have risen above a C.
So, yes, I share very real cautions about taking this "soldier-diplomat" thing too far, or expecting too much. Expect it of SF with little reservation, but as you get farther from that one unique slice of our force your concerns need to rise accordingly.
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.
Bookmarks