TW: Dana Priest wrote a good book several years ago, The Mission. The book outlined the evolution of American diplomacy from management by the State Department to management from the Pentagon. This trend had started in the 1980's and continued through the W. Bush years. The reasons included: the military command structures (i.e. Centcom, Pacfic Com) de-centralizing into regional commands well placed for regional diplomacy as well, reduced State Department budgets and the increased tempo of American military actions which tends to aggregate power towards the military.
In an example of another subtle but important change brought about by the new POTUS, the State Department is reasserting its traditional (not to mention core purpose) role in American diplomacy. To me another good thing, not because the military has done bad things but because they have enough on their plates without being the primary diplomatic go to source.
From NYT:
"...In the nearly eight years since the 9/11 attacks, the foreign policy of the United States has often appeared to be an exclusively military affair, if not always conducted by men with guns then practiced by civilians not shy in reminding their foes that they had force at their disposal. The diplomats, for the most part, watched from afar.
As a result, America’s engagement with dangerous parts of the world in that time became largely militarized — good at projecting force but sometimes, it seemed, missing opportunities that might have been better exploited by an earlier and more vigorous use of people without guns. Not just in Afghanistan, but in Iran, North Korea and the Middle East as well.
The military itself, straining to fight two wars, groaned under burdens it had not intended to take on.
Mr. Holbrooke — relentless, experienced, charismatic — seems the embodiment of a new paradigm, one that includes military force but emphasizes a wider range of tools, like diplomacy, persuasion and money.
...The reassertion by civilian leaders is being led by Sec. State Clinton, who has promised to restore the State Department’s centrality in the making of foreign policy. In the first six years of the Bush presidency, Sec. Def Rumsfeld dominated the administration’s interactions with the world, pushing aside Secretaries of State Powell and Rice. Likewise, in places like the Balkans and Iraq, the military began undertaking activities once reserved for diplomats, like overseeing reconstruction and development projects. Mrs. Clinton says she not only wants to take back those former responsibilities, but to restore diplomacy’s primary role in resolving crises. One of the centerpieces of that effort would be Iran,
...She has a long way to go. According to an article in the January-February issue of Foreign Affairs by J. Anthony Holmes, there are more musicians playing in military bands than there are diplomats working around the globe.
...Indeed, Admiral Mullen has himself decried what he calls the “militarization” of American foreign policy and advocated restoring some of the State Department’s influence. In 2007, when Admiral Mullen was chief of naval operations, he offered to turn over part of his budget to the State Department — an extraordinary act for a public official. “The military should be led by diplomacy,”
...It is perhaps in Afghanistan, where American troops are bogged down in a bloody war, and in Pakistan, which is lurching toward chaos, that the new diplomatic approach will face its toughest and most important test.
...President Obama made clear that in order to defeat Al Qaeda America will have to embark on a long and expensive campaign of diplomacy and nation building in both places. In a speech last month outlining his strategy, President Obama said he would order a “dramatic” increase in the number of civilians working in Afghanistan. He also said he would spend considerably more on communications to counter Taliban propaganda.
...Under the plan, the United States would send Pakistan $1.5 billion each year for the next five years. That would mean, perhaps for the first time ever, that economic and humanitarian assistance to Pakistan would nearly equal the amount spent on that country’s military.
The money for Pakistan is meant in part to help take the heat off of Afghanistan, but it’s mainly meant to help Pakistan save itself..."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/weekinreview/12filkins.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=dexter%20filkins%20diplomats&st=cse
No comments:
Post a Comment