Inter-Agency Leadership

[Stan]

Hey Rob !
A great post, but nothing less than I expected from a person of your caliber

This would indeed be a good point for Tom to jump in, but I just so happen to have an opinion on Statesman/Soldier relationships. So, here's an NCO's view from the bottom of the pile

Given the fact that both of these men have has some time together in rather inhospitable situations, and were put together for good reasons (I hope), it's then no surprise they have worked out differences and concluded (based on their respective abilities) same. I would also submit, they've had some time to practice (speeches, et al), or both would not only be out of jobs, but look real dumb doing so.

The desks or COCOMS do in fact drive the train, but once far from the flag pole, State and DOD get to hash out differences on site. It really no longer matters who's (legally) in charge, and Tom will again tell you, it's leadership.

As the Ambassador, time to let some things go and permit your professional soldiers to do their job. Conversely, the Soldier must understand his/her limitations, financially as well as physically. Some things are better handled via diplomatic channels, some not.

We bridge the gap with understanding and trust. Tom and I never got to bridge the gap in Zaire, and our reporting fell on deaf ears. The mission suffered and the end state was never achieved. Decades later, Subject As Above. Only later would Tom receive a leader from State, not afraid of letting his troops perform.

Regards, Stan

One thing I was struck by during the testimony was the breadth of Ambassador Crocker's testimony. Based on the depth of his answers in terms of articulating the complex situation in Iraq, domestic, regional and inter-national factors and short & long term consequences - my understanding of roles and responsibilities was altered.

My previous understanding was that most country diplomatic missions have a kind of bi-lateral focus, although regional desks and the COCOM's political officer would seem to need a broader scope. With the testimony, I saw a very complimentary partnership between the military and diplomatic corps. While both men were able to articulate each other's position to a great degree, the manner in which they presented the argument provided additional context - it was a kind of soldier/statesman - statesman/soldier blend. The relationship they described with regard to day to day operations & leadership - may be one of the most mature I've ever seen, read about or heard of. Putting these two men together was only pat of the solution - the individual commitment required to rise above organizational culture and solve the problem had to come from within.

I'm not writing this to play cheer leader for anybody. I am using this as a vehicle to explore the question of Inter-Agency leadership and the role it will play in this increasingly complex environment where because of the inter-relationship between reaction & consequences (often on a regional and global scale) there are no easy answers.

Is this a model for leadership we should consider for future command structures where the other elements of national power - MIDLIFE or DIME-FIL may require balance or proportionality? I think our previous models have been correct for the questions of conflict termination, but what about prevention and resolution? What are the consequences of change (good or bad)?

I'd also consider:

What are the tools of diplomacy & what are their limitations or benefits? Are the tools adequate to the environment we face? The question of a new G/N act is fair game I guess, although their are serious impediments to getting there - but what about how a co-operative CMD structure like we see demonstrated might bridge the gap?

Best Regards, Rob