Quote Originally Posted by ODB View Post
IMO soldiers at all levels need to be tactful, therefore diplomats, but hard lines need to be drawn when it comes to soldiers conducting negotiations and therefore being diplomats in this sense.
No disagreement in the ideal - but - what do you do as a military member when negotiations with local leaders are required and there are no civil reps available?

That is the crux of the problem. Hell, we couldn't get the PRT out of Mosul to come to Tal Afar or Ramadi. A good recent article cited USAID was hampered because it wasn't allowed to leave Kabul. Things have gotten better in Iraq but I doubt many COPs in A-Stan have access to a DoS rep when needing to negotiate with a local leader. And until DoS enters the chain of command it's kind of like the famous observation about the Pope - "How many divisions does he have?" Local leaders know who has the power, and deal with those who have real power.

The task for the forseeable future in the current conflicts falls to the military. Whether we should do it or are the ideal organization is irrelevant. Civil capacity (if ever developed/funded) is one or more decades away. So in the meantime, I argue we must prepare our soldiers to succeed in the environment they face. If this means "not my lane" tasks, then so be it.

I just fundamentally disagree with those who say the military shouldn't train this because it shouldn't be their mission. As long as political masters keep us engaged in such conflicts and refuse to transform the civilian establishment to meet those demands, the military would be negligent and irresponsible not to prepare its officers and NCO's in command positions for such challenges.

I will happily hand this over to DoS when we create more foreign service officers than the Army has Soldiers in its bands, or the political leadership takes the task away. The military serves the state and is expected to win. Therefore, we must do whatever it takes to win, even if it's a non-military task.