Economics and Irregular Warfare

[Schmedlap]

Many of my experiences with the Commanders Emergency Response Program (CERP),as well as development programs in general, were and are different than your description.

I don't doubt it. But I was speaking to the intended use and to the guidance that we received for it. It's nothing new for a tool to be used differently than intended, whether it's a poncho liner, Command Launch Unit, or CERP. But even going beyond intended use, I would go a step farther and say that, in this case, I think the intent is correct. CERP is a poor tool for economic development. I think we learned that lesson over a couple of years, which led to the explicit instructions we received in 2007 to think small and short term.

The CERP and USAID links I provided in my post emphasize the importance of synchronized development systems which strive for unity of effort. Only time will tell, however, if the costs and benefits of our coalition development efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan will have surpassed, equaled, or fell well short of the costs and benefits of the ~13 billion USD Marshall Plan (1952 US GDP ~358 billion?).

I did not plow through the entire 90+ page CALL document, but in skimming it I noticed some dramatic differences between that CALL unclass treatise on MAAWS and the one that I used in theater (our command's SOP) that discussed numerous lines of funds available to us (not just CERP).

I did read the entire GTA (all two pages). The GTA, unless I really misunderstood, supports the guidance that we received in 07. I see only one mention of economic development and it is in the lower left of the first side of the GTA, mentioning that CERP can support a long-term goal of helping to develop indigenous capacity for a viable market economy. I think even that is a bit presumptuous. CERP is short-term funding (usually lump-sum) for a short-term project. Perhaps a good planner can pull off a bunch of projects done in a coordinated manner like you did in 04. Likewise, I guess if you give an artist some art supplies and he's in the right mood and something inspires him, then he can create a masterpiece. For the rest of us, we need to assume more modest goals and realize that conditions are usually inadequate to do much.

On that point, I would like to reiterate my earlier assertion...

Economic development should not fall upon the shoulders of a company or battalion that could unexpectedly receive orders to operate in a new AOR at any given time, either by redrawing boundaries or relocating. It should be handled by higher level units that have more direct communication with higher level political operatives and more direct channels to other agencies within our government - which allows them to tap into greater and more diverse funding sources.

I think the lack of continuity in an AO prevents long-term economic planning at the BN & below level. Even if a unit spends an entire year in an AO, they're still getting their bearings within the first month and they're not likely to plan projects that will extend beyond their tour. That leaves you with about 8 to 10 months to work with. That's not long-term. And the lack of continuity resulting from yearly RIP/TOAs and/or redrawing AORs makes long-term planning nearly impossible. I've done 8 RIP/TOAs at Bn & below (4 deployments, with a RIP/TOA at each end) and observed several others. Continuity always gets talked about, but it never happens.